Sustainable resource management in agriculture and rural development projects : a review of Bank policies, procedures, and results

THE WORLD BANK POLICY PLANNING AND RESEARCH STAFF .NlV-coo5 Environment Department Sustainable Resource Management in Agriculture and Rural Development Projects: A Review of Bank Policies, Procedures, and Results Douglas F. Barnes and Jose Olivares June 1988 Environment Department Working Paper No. 5 This paper has been prepared for internal use. The views and interpretations herein are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations or to any individual acting on their behalf. This paper was prepared as a joint project between the Environment Department (ENV) and the Agriculture and Rural Development Department (AGR) * to review how resource issues have been treated in Agriculture and Rural Development projects. The bulk of the work was carried out before the reorganization and at that time Douglas Barnes was a consultant to both AGR and the Environmental Unit of the Operational Policy Staff, and Jose Olivares was a staff member in AGR. Currently, Douglas Barnes is a consultant in the Household Energy Unit of the Industry and Energy Department, and Jose Olivares is a staff member in the Agricultural operations Division of the Southern Africa Department. The authors are indebted to Jerry O'Mara, John Spears, Michael Cernea, and many project officers who provided useful ideas at all stages of the research. Comments on an early draft by Christopher Gibbs were extremely helpful in major revisions. John English, Ernst Lutz, A. Alicbusan, and Raymond Noronha provided very useful comments on the final draft. Finally, we would like to thank Jerry Warford and Richard Ackermann for providing support and guidance throughout the project. Departmental Working Papers are not formal publications of the World Bank. They present preliminary and unpolished results of country analysis or research that are circulated to encourage discussion and comment; citation and the use of such a paper should take account of its provisional character.' The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. Because of the informality and to present the results of research with the least possible delay, the typescript has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. This report is based principally upon a review of 115 agriculture and rural development projects approved by the Board between 1983 and 1986. The analysis draws primarily upon the written documentation of the projects, i.e., appraisal reports, and whenever relevant, supervision reports. It indicates that most of the projects have a major emphasis on improved production and generation of income for farmers, but relatively few have dealt explicitly with long-term resource management issues. Only about 50 percent of projects mention resource problems in the project rationale, which means that fully half of the projects address sustainable resource management as an implied rather than an explicit part of the project. The projects with sustainable resource management as a significant goal include social forestry, watershed protection, and irrigation and drainage. The projects with greater resource problems include those with large changes in land use or those located in sensitive or marginal environments, including resettlement, livestock credit, and irrigation. Finally, for most projects it is very difficult to determine their implication for resource use, including agricultural extension, reseatch, and many area development projects. The period in which resources are managed in a sustainable way generally involve technological, economic, and social conditions that complement one another. Resource problems can arise due to changes in either technological, economic or social factors, while the others lag behind and become inappropriate for the altered circumstances. Such a disequilibrium can be set off by changes in the system of production recommended in a project, but it also can be caused by other factors including population growth, the opening up of new land, and the development of new markets for an agricultural commodity. Based on experience in past projects, the complex task of integrating resource management into a project must start at the project design stage, thus assuring incentives for sustainable resource management are appropriate in the context of a changed system of production, caused by either population * growth, opening new land and markets, or induced changes in technologies. SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELPMENT PROJECTS: A REVIEW OF BANK POLICIES. PROCEDURES AND RESULTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................1 II. CONCEPTUAL ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE PROJECT REVIEW..............2 III. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A PROJECT REVIEW FOR 1983-86...................................4 - The Project: Identifying Resource Management Issues........4 - The Project Rationale: Resource Problems Already in the Project Area...............................11 - The Project Externalities: Lack of Project Documentation .............................................15 - The Project Trends: Emerging Themes in Resource Management Incentives.....................................18 IV. SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SUCCESS AND FAILURE: PROJECT EXAMPLES FROM INDIA, SUDAN, AND BRAZIL................22 - Social Forestry in India: Involving Smallholders in Resource Management....................................22 - Sudan Rainfed Mechanization: Increased Production - With Declining Yields.....................................26 - Brazil Northwest Settlement: Rural Development or Resource Extraction....................................28 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION........................................31 - Summary of Project Review..................................32 - Bank Management Issues.....................................33 - Conclusion.................................................35 APPENDIX A - THE ANTICIPATED IMPACT OF RECENT AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, 1983-86 - iv - LIST OF TABLES Table 1: "Classification of Environmental Issues in Agriculture and Rural Development Projects, 1983-1986................6 Table 2: "Percent of Agriculture and Rural Development Projects Broken Down by Potential Project Land or Water Impact, 1983-1985 ..................................7 Table 3: "Percent of Agriculture and Rural Development Projects With Major or Minor Land Use Change by Region by Type of Loan, 1983-1985"....................................... 9 Table 4: "Percent of Agriculture and Rural Development Projects Located in Sensitive or Robust Regions, 1983-1985.......10 Table 5: "Percent of Land or Water Use Problems Cited in Project Rationale or Background, 1983-1985"......................13 Table 6: "Percent of Agriculture and Rural Development Projects That Cite Temporal or Lateral Externalities, 1983-1985"..17 Table 7: "The Plantation Costs for Social Forestry Projects in India, 1978-1984......................................25 Page 1 SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGE11ENT IN AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: A REVIEW OF BANK POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND RESULTS I. INTRODUCTION Recently concern has been raised over the sustainability of World Bank- supported projects involving land and water use. The concern stems from the perception that projects have not adequately taken into consideration the unintended and sometimes unanticipated negative consequences for people or regions outside of the immediate project area. The Northwest settlement projects in Brazil have been cited as causing extensive deforestation and land degradation. Livestock projects have been alleged to have a negative impact on vegetation and wildlife. Area development schemes which encourage fertilizer use might result in water pollution. When Bank-supported projects are directly involved in land and water protection, such as a Himalayan watershed protection project in India, the explicit linkages between the project area and downstream benefits often are not very well defined. The evaluation of land and water resource management policies and practices must take place within the context of macroeconomic policy, the local farming system, the agroclimate, and the traditional rules governing access to and use of land. The complexity of evaluating resource management practices can be illustrated by two examples. The first example involves the deforestation caused by land clearing for agriculture in sparsely populated areas. If the clearing is done in an unplanned way involving agricultural systems that are land extensive--such as those in many parts of Africa--soil fertility can decrease and eventually soil resources can be lost for future generations. But land clearing combined with the introduction of appropriate agricultural systems may increase .the overall productivity of the land, and any decline in soil fertility may be made up for by increased use of organic and chemical fertilizers. A second example is the expansion of intensive agricultural systems into sensitive regions such as coastal swamps which can lead to decline in availability of natural resources. But bringing new land under irrigation can contribute significantly to socioeconomic development. The point is that changes in land use--such as cutting down trees or intensification of land use--do not necessarily result in poor land and water use practices. This review is based on staff appraisal reports and, whenever relevant, supervision reports. -Its main focus is the way the Bank has handled the goals, justification, and potential impact of the projects on land and water resources, including the extent of project externalities, incentives for better land and water use, and the role of equity. It was found that externalities generally speaking are not dealt with in any depth in project documents. The actual impacts of projects on land and water resources beyond the physical project area or the projects' lifetime just have not been a major issue in project design. On the other hand, the equity and incentive issues are identified in virtually all land and water projects as Page 2 important problems. Whether incentive and equity issues are handled well or poorly has a significant impact on how land use changes affect resource management. Incentives for resource management are closely connected with both the traditional rules governing land use and the economic policies governing prices and subsidies for inputs and crops produced. But with the exception of some sector loans, changes in macroeconomic policy are considered to be beyond the scope of most projects. Both successful and unsuccessful projects have been reviewed to identify lessons to be learned and practices to be avoided. In order to evaluate recent practices and policies, the paper concentrates on 115 projects approved in the three fiscal years 1983 through 1985. Many project officers and advisers were interviewed to supplement information from reports. Three examples also were selected for a more in-depth examination of longer-term trends over a series of successful and unsuccessful projects. The examples include social forestry in India, farm mechanization in Sudan, and the Northwest Settlement in Brazil. This review could not analyze actual impacts of projects because most of the projects approved between 1983 and 1985 are currently being executed. The summary of projects reviewed can be found in Appendix A, and a more detailed description of the land use and environmental changes anticipated in the projects can be found in Appendix B (which is available from the authors on request). II. CONCEPTUAL ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE PROJECT REVIEW The goal of most agriculture and rural development projects is to promote changes in farming practices that result in improved agricultural production and increases in farmer income. But changes in farming practices and land use can lead either to improvements or to problems in use of resources. The assumption in this paper is that farming systems are in a continual state.of evolution, however fast or slow, and that this evolution involves periods in which resources are overused causing land management problems and also periods in which they are managed wisely. The periods in which resources are managed in a sustainable way generally involve technological, economic and social conditions that complement one another. The periods in which resource problems arise usually involve some kind of change in either technological, economic or social factors, while the others lag behind and become inappropriate for the changed circumstances. Changes in land use in a region can occur for internal and external reasons. In most cases changes are for enhancing resource use. But the following examples demonstrate how changes in land use resulting from technical, economic or social conditions can cause resource problems. 1. Extensive Versus Intensive Land Development. Internal pressure from population growth can cause increased pressure on the land, and farmers must either expand land under production or utilize yield increasing technologies. If land is not available and the right technologies are not adopted to increase yields, then problems can arise in the form of overuse of the land or expansion into regions unsuitable to agriculture. Page 3 2. Opening of New Markets. New markets or rapidly rising prices can cause significant changes in the allocation of land use among crops, which can result in both problems and/or benefits. Changes in the economics of producing crops cause existing farming practices to become outmoded, and farmers must adopt new ones which may or may not be sustainable in the long term. If prices rise very rapidly, farmers are tempted to exploit existing resources for short-term gains. 3. Opening of New Lands. When new lands are opened up for cultivation, the new farming practices may or may not be sustainable due to the lack of knowledge and lack of incentives among new farmers to manage resources in a sustainable way. Farming practices imported from regions with different socioeconomic and agroclimatic endowments may cause problems on the new lands. Also, the development of markets and institutions typically lag behind land development when new lands are opened to cultivation. 4. Induced Innovation. Farmers can adopt innovations that gradually increase their yields. Changes in land use can be relatively fast or slow depending on the nature of the innovation. If the changes are fast and the innovations differ significantly from previous technologies, then the customs and traditions of local resource management may become outmoded, leading to resource problems. 5. Local Resource Management. A change in laws governing resource use can also have significant implications for resource management by ta'-ing authority for resource management away from those at the local level. If the enforcement of rules governing *forest use is transferred from local people to outside agencies, as wai the case in Nepal in the 1970s, then encroachment and overuse may actually increase. In most of the above cases relatively fast changes in land use are more lik..ly to cause resource imbalances between the technical, economic and social factors than those that are relatively slow. The agroclimate and resource base also play a significant role in whether resources are managed properly. Regions can be classified as either robust or sensitive, depending on how they respond to changes in land use. For instance, plains typically are robust and can bounce back to high levels of production even after they have suffered much abuse. By contrast, in sensitive environments such as watersheds or tropical forests small changes in land use can result in the loss of the use of resources for future generations. Thus, in addition to the technical, economic and social systems, the agroclimate can play an important role in determining whether changes in land use are sustainable. In this paper projects have been classified as either being in regions which are sensitive or robust. The purpose of this study is to review whether Bank-documented preparation and appraisals have effectively dealt with resource management issues, including whether recommended changes in farming practices have taken into consideration relevant technical, economic and social systems. For instance, the opening of markets has the potential of causing overproduction of certain types of crops. The opening of new land may Page 4 introduce farming systems that are incompatible with the resource base. A change in farming technology that is not accompanied with changes in economic and social incentives may cause resource problems. In the next section projects documents are reviewed to classify each project according to land use change, to identify the type of agroclimate or resource base in the project area, and the extent of potential project externalities. III.CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: A PROJECT REVIEW FOR 1983-1985 In the last 10 years there has been a growing awareness that technical solutions are important for socioeconomic development, but alone they are not enough to solve most resource management problems. Good performance generally has been achieved by developing projects that address the socioeconomic needs of the groups that are, in whole or in part, responsible for the problems. One should not lose sight of the fact that inappropriate incentives along with low incomes are the most common source of environmental or sustainability problems--the farmer following the tradition of expanding area under cultivation in a region with increasing population pressure, the insecure squatter who has been pushed to farming in forest reserves, the logger with generous government concessions, or the herder faced with declining pasture and shrinking access to water. Enforcement of laws against such resource abuse or encroachment has been very ineffective. Virtually all agriculture and rural development projects have implications for sustainable resource management, but only a small percentage of them consider it to be a primary project goal. The primary explicit goal of most projects is to improve production or to increase farmer incomes, with the implicit goal that land and water will not be overused or harmed in the process. Most project environmental impacts statements are not framed in terms of resource management, but rather relate to major damage that might possibly occur as a consequence of the project. In the past the environmental impact assessments have been written well after projects have been formulated and really are disclaimers that the project are environmentally sound. In this section the project rationale, the main goals and objectives of the project, externalities, extent of land use change, and the type of region in which a project is located are analyzed. The Project: Identifying Resource Management Issues Virtually all Agriculture and Rural Development Projects involve some form of change in land or water use. The changes can improve income and welfare in rural areas, while at the same time they may have either beneficial or detrimental effects on the environment. The possibility always exists that changes in technology, social systems, or economic incentives can have unanticipated negative consequences for the environment. The objective of this section is to utilize -existing project documentation to determine how environmental issues are assessed and handled, and whether the method of identification of sustainable resource management issues can be improved so that unanticipated and unintended negative environmental consequences can be minimized. Page 5 Present Method of Classivina Environmental Iss4fes. The degree to which a project has the potential of deviating from sustainable resource management practices is usually identified in the section on environmental impacts. Of course most of the sections on environmental impacts are essentially disclaimers that the project is environmentally sound. Nevertheless, a 'typical list of the issues identified in this section is presented in Table 1. Consistent with common expectations, soil conservation issues are mentioned most often in perennial crop, area development, and forestry projects. Pesticide use is a common feature of livestock, and research and extension projects. Pollution issues are identified in those projects with crop processing components, including agroindustries and perennial crops. Waterborne disease issues show up primarily in irrigation projects. Probably the most interesting finding is that over 60 percent of the projects list miscellaneous environmental issues, reflecting the fact that present methods of classifying environmental issues are inadequate. This is a further illustration of the difficulties in evaluating potential adverse effects on the environment. As mentioned in the introduction, the act of cutting down trees is an environmental issue only in a particular context. Likewise soil conservation issues may be very important in watersheds but less important on flat plains. In other words, environmental issues must be placed in the context of what practices are or are not sustainable over the long term for a given region. Resource issues are readily defined, but sustainability is much more difficult to assess. Identifying Risk--Agroclimate and Land Use Change. Project risk generally is associated with unpredictable markets, weak management capabilities, or lack of farmer acceptance of an innovation. Environmental problems are only rarely included as a risk. Environmental risk or the potential for a project to deviate from sustainable resource management practices varies depending on the type of project and regional characteristics. The two factors that are hypothesized to be closely associated with environmental risk are the degree of land use change In the project and the type of agroclimate (I.e. whether a region is sensitive to changes). The findings confirm that the degree of land use change and the sensitivity to change do have an impact on the anticipated land and water use problems in a region. As expected, projects with large changes in land use have a greater degree of explicitly anticipated problems compared to those with minor changes. As indicated in Table 2, close to half of the projects with major changes in land use anticipated potential problems, compared to only 10 percent of projec6s with small changes in land use. Page 6 Table 1. Classification of environmental Issues I Agriculture and Rural Development Projects, 19831986. Figures are for percent of issues idendfed in projects by the re8ion orby loan type ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE PROJECT No. of Soil Pesticide Waterborne Social Miscelaneous Projects Conservation Pollution Use Diseases Risk Issues REGION East and South Africa 44 54.6 23 4.6 23 29.6 81.8 Western Africa 36 333 5.6 2.8 5.6 30.6 44.4 Europe, M. East, N. Africa 39 35.9 2.6 7.7 7.7 25.6 56.4 Latin America/Caribbean 38 50.0 7.9 53 7.9 263 47.4 East Asia and Pacific 46 63.0 8.7 2.2 4.4 28.2 63.0 South Asia 63 36.5 7.9 1.6 9.5 30.2 683 TOTAL PROJECTS 266 45.5 6.0 3.8 6.4 28.6 61.7 TYPE OF LOAN Sector Loan 20 40.0 - - - 30.0 35.0 Credit 20 15.0 - - - 15.0 30.0 Area Development 69 652 2.9 2.9 4.4 333 59.4 Fishery 5 20.0 - - - 20.0 80.0 Irrigation & Drainage 63 39.7 7.9 4.8 19.0 28.6 73.0 Livestock 9 333 - 11.1 - 44.4 66.7 Agroindustry 15 133 26.7 6.7 - 6.7 533 - Perennial Crops 12 75.0 25.0 - - 25.0 .75.0 Research & Extension 19 47.4 5.3 10.5 53 47.4 73.7 Forestry 19 63.2 - - - 31.6 94.7 Other 15 27.0 6.7 6.7. 6.7 133 33 TOTAL PROJECTS 266 45.5 6.0 3.8 6.4 28.6 61.6 Source: AGR Database and Staff Appraisal Reports for Agriculture and Rural Development Projects. Page 7 Table 2. Percent of Agriculture and Rural Development projects broken down by potential project land or water Impact, 1983-1985. Fipes are row percents of projects in the qion or by loan type ANTICIRATED PROJECT LAND OR WATER IMPACT No. of Major Minor No Minor Major Not Proiects Benefits Benefits Problems Problems Problems A plicable Total LAND CLASS Sensitive 37 18.9 18.9 5.4 35.1 8.1 13.5 100.0 Robust 66 13.6 34.9 16.7 13.6 1.5 19.7 100.0 Not Applicable 12 83 83 - - - 833 100.0 TOTAL PROJECTS 115 .14.8 27.0 113 19.1 3.5 243 100.0 LAND USE CHANGE No change 2 - 50.0 - - - 50.0 100.0 Minor Change 56 12.5 393 19.6 8.9 1.8 179 100.0 Major Change 41 21.9 19.5 2.4 39.0 73 9.8 100.0 Not Applicable 16 63 - 63 6.3 - 81.3 100.0 TOTAL PROJECTS 115 14.8 27.0 113 19.1 3.5 243 100.0 Source: Staff Appraisal Reports for Agriculture and Rural Development Projects. % Note: The no problems category contains all projects for which no anticipated problems or benefits were citeZ in the reports. Page 8 The major changes in land use identified in projects include changing rangeland to uses in agriculture, irrigating land previously under rainfed agriculture, creating pasture and grazing land from forests, and draining swamps for agricultural use. About 36 percent of total projects reviewed involve such major changes in land use, involving forestry, perennial crops, livestock, and resettlement projects (see Table 3). The problems inherent in large changes in land use are that reliable knowledge about their consequences is still very limited. For instance, most forestry projects involve harvesting or clearing trees from already degraded forests in order to establish plantation forestry schemes. Perennial crop projects also include clearing of degraded forests for establishing tree crops, which means that a monoculture will replace natural forests with a wider diversity of species. Resettlement and livestock projects involve movement from either forest to ranches or from unfenced grazing to fenced grazing. The consequences can be deforestation, decline in wildlife diversity, or erosion of watersheds. Such changes also have significant impact on native populations, who must either adapt to a new way of life in the region or migrate out of it. Projects with minor changes in land use have been expected to involve less environmental risk. Minor land use changes involve changing cropping patterns, increasing input use, and changing from food to cash crops; and the relevant projects include rural development, agricultural extension, perennial crops, and rehabilitation of irrigation. About 48 percent of all projects involve minor changes in land use. The main risks in such projects are the increase in the use of such inputs as pesticides and fertilizers. Interestingly, most recent irrigation projects involve small changes in land use, because they involve rehabilitation of existing schemes rather than building new trrigation. The agroclimate and geography of a region also can have significant implications for sustainable resource management. Projects can be located in "sensitive" or "robust" regions. A sensitive region is one in which productivity does not spring back quickly after poor land management, and where in some cases there can be irreversible damage. Potentially important factors in defining sensitive regions include the climate, topography, soil, land use, and technology in use. For this study the regions classified as sensitive include the humid tropics (especially tropical forests), mountain watersheds, regions with low rainfall, and wetlands including peat bogs (see Table 4). Only 32 percent of projects reviewed were located in such regions. But the number of projects with anticipated land or water use problems is significantly higher in sensitive than robust regions. About 43 percent of project documents for sensitive regions mention potential environmental problems compared to 15 percent for robust regions (see Table 2). In sensitive regions the margin for error is very slim, so any faulty project execution or unenforced rules to protect the environment can cause extensive problems. Examples included the Brazil Northwest Settlement, Indonesia Resettlement, Lac Alaotra Irrigation, Himalayan Watershed Protection, and Sudan Stockroute projects. 'age 9 Table 3. Percent of Agriculture and Rural Development projects with major or minor land use change by region by type of loan, 1983*1985. F18ur are row percents of projects in the segion or by loan type ANTICIPATED LAND.USE CHANGE DUE TO PROJECT No. of No Minor Major Not Projects Change Chane Change Applicable Total REGION East and South Africa 21 4.8 57.1 19.0 19.0 100.0 Western Africa 18 - 50.0 50.0 - 100.0 Latin America/Caribbean 21 47.6 23.8 28.6 100.0 East Asia and Pacific is - 40.0 533 6.7 100.0 South Asia 40 2.5 47.5 37.5 12.5 100.0 TOTAL PROJECTS 115 1.7 48.7 35.7 13.9 100.0 TYPE OF LOAN Sector Loan 4 - 50.0 50.0 - 100.0 Credit 6 - 333 16.7 50.0 100.0 Area Development 36 - 52.8 44.4 2.8 100.0 Fishery 1 - - - 100.0 100.0 Irrigation & Drainage 32 3.1 62.5 34.4 - 100.0 Livestock 3 - - 66.7 33.3 100.40 Agroindustry 9 - 66.7 - 333 100.0 Perennial Crops 5 - 40.0 60.0 - 100.0 Research & Extension 7 14.3 28.6 - 57.1 100.0 Forestry 10 - 20.0 60.0 20.0 100.0 Other 2 - . 50.0 - .0 100.0 TOTAL PROJECTS 115 1.7 48.7 35.7 13.9 100.0 Source: Staff Appraisal Reports for Agriculture and Rural Development Projects. Page 10 Table 4. Percent of Agricuiture and Rural Development projects located i sensitive or robust reglons, 1983.1985. Figres are row percents of projects in the region or by loan type LAND ClASS OF THE PROJECT-SENSIrVE OR ROBUST Sensitive Land Robust Land No. of Tropical Mountain/ Arid or Not Projects Humid Watershed Semiarid Wetlands Agriculture Forestry ADlicable Total REGION East and South Africa 21 - - 23.8 9.5 52.4 4.8 9.5 100.0 Western Aftica 18 - - 12.2 - SS.6 22.2 - 100.0 Latin America/Caribbean 21 4.8 23.8 143 - 38.1 - 19.0 100.0 East Asia and Pacific 15 26.7 133 - 6.7 40.0 - 13.3 100.0 South Asia 40 5.0 12.S 7.5 - 62.5 2.5 10.0 100.0 TOTAL PROJECTS 115 6.1 10.4 13.0 2.6 S2.2 5.2 10.4 100.0 TYPE OF IAAN Sector Loan 4 - - - - 75.0 - 25.0 100.0 Credit 6 - 33.3 - - 33.3 - 33.3 100.0 Area Development 36 11.1 11.1 13.9 - 61.1 - 2.8 100.0 Fishery I - - - - - - 100.0 100.0 Irrigation & Drainage 32 3.1 63 21.9 9.4 59.4 - - 100.0 Livestock 3 - 33.3 66.7 - - - - 100.0 Agoidustry 9 - - 11.1 - 66.7 - 22.2 100.0 - Perennial Copi 5 20 20.0 - - - 60.0 - 100.0 Research & Extension 7 - - - - 42.9 - $7.1 100.0 Fotestry 10 10.0 20.0 - - 30.0 30.0 10.0 100.0 Other 2 - - - 100.0 - - 100.0 TOTAL PROJECTS 11 6.1 10.4 13.0 2.6 522 S.2 10.4 100.0 Source Staff Appraisal Reports for Agriculture and Rural Development Projects. Page 11 Regions classified as robust can spring back quickly even after much abuse. Although robustness needs to be more carefully defined, the regions included flat clay plains and river bottomlands. Such regions are agroecologically more homogeneous compared to uplands. Thus, the robust category includes favorable environment for agriculture or forestry, including bottomland with sufficient rainfall and flat regions with adequate topsoil. Over 57 percent of the projects reviewed are located in such regions. Examples would include the Burkina Faso Agricultural Development, Colombia Agricultural Diversification, and Gujarat Social Forestry. Nothing is earthshaking about the finding that environmental risk is high for projects with significant land use changes located in sensitive regions. Settlement projects in Brazil and Indonesia have well documented history of problems during project execution. But precisely because environmental risk is not that difficult to predict means that it should be fairly simple to build in protective components. In practice, the environmental protective components of problem projects have either been ignored or reduced to minor components of such projects. Thus, what is surprising is that many projects with known environmental risk have experienced such significant problems in spite of established precautionary measures recommended by the Bank. Large changes in land use need to be accompanied by complementary changes in economic policies and social systems if they are to be sustainable in the long term. A new system of rules and regulations must be worked out, involving issues of fairness for those who used the land before the project and the most appropriate manageme.nt practices for the new use of land. For sensitive regions, the environmental risk is that changes in land use can be irreversible. In many cases the options for improving productivity are more limited in very sensitive environments. There are no simple formulas for assuring that projects do not deviate from sustainable resource managemeht practices. The Project Rationale: Resource Problems Already in the Project Area The project rationale and background should reflect the importance given to resource issues as part of a project's design and justification, since they are the link between policy, past operations and the proposed project. It is in the project rationale in which land use problems that are to be overcome are described. For instance a fuelwood project would cite the gap between wood consumption and sustainable supply. An irrigation rehabilitation project would cite the reduced flow of water and its adverse effects on production. The drawback of project rationales and background sections is that the link between macro-level justifications and projects is sometimes very tenuous. In spite of this they contain the only information available on the reason for project lending. As a consequence, the background and project rationale have been examined in all 115 projects to evaluate the number u projects that cite resource problems as part of their rationale. No land and water use problems in the project area are mentioned in over half of the agriculture and rural development projects (see Table 5). One may wonder whether there are no problems, whether they have been overlooked, or whether such problems truly are not applicable for certain types of projects. For many types of projects it is difficult to determine the intended or ensuing changes in land use, as is the case for research or Page 12 credit projects. But in many cases, lack of information on sensitive land areas or water resource problems may lead to projects without protective components. If it is not known whether there are sensitive regions in the project area, measures cannot be taken to prevent resource problems. For instance, the Burma Wood Industry II project involves a rehabilitation of the sawmill industry, but there is no documentation of the effect of the increase in demand for existing wood on forest resources or on the environment. Overuse of and. The most common problem cited in the project region is overuse of tne land, involving about 16 percent of projects. Overuse of land can be a function of population density or its rate of increase, the productive capacity of the land or water resource, the type of technology in use, and the resilience of the environment to bounce back from sudden shocks or misuse. The overuse of land in the project region is most common in the East and Southern Africa regions, where over one-quarter of the projects address land overuse issues, and it is also common in West Africa where about close to one-fifth of the projects address land use issues. In many of the projects in Africa the intensification of the existing use of land rather than dramatic changes in land use is viewed as the solution to increasing population pressure on the land. Absolute population densities in most parts of Africa are not at very high levels, but population growth is putting pressure on the land because of the extensive farming systems in use' and the low potential production of the agroclimate in many regions. Area development projects, which are very common in Africa, support a whole range of changes in the project region, including credit, extension, and more intensive use of inputs. A typical project is the Gambia Agricultural Development II which supports reorganization of extension and restructuring of the cooperatives that supply inputs and credit. Land overuse is a common justification for projects in East Asia and the Pacific involving about one-quarter of all projects, but not very common in South Asia. The reason is that in East Asia and the Pacific, one method of dealing with population growth and density has been through resettlement projects--moving people from densely to sparsely populated regions. By contrast, in South Asia where there is virtually no sparsely populated land, the same problems have been dealt with through projects promoting strong agricultural growth resulting from a combination of irrigation and agricultural intensification. The story of the "green revolution" in India is a well known chapter in the history of development. Page 13 Table 5. Percent of laud or water use problems cited In project rationale or background, 19831985. Figures are for percent of projects in the region or by loan type JAND AND WATMR PROBLEMS IN PROJECT REGION No. of None Salinization/ Overuse of Use of Land Not jts ated WAtrigastin Brosion Land Chemicals Siltation CUrina Fgaod Losini Amlicable Total REGION Eas and South Africa 21 38.1 14.3 - 28.6 - - 4.8 - - 14.3 100.0 Western Africa 18 61.1 - 16.7 5.6 - 11.1 - 5.6 - 100.0 Latin America/Caribbean 21 28.6 - 4.8 19.0 - - 93 - - 38.1 100.0 East Asia and Pacific is 133 6.7 6.7 26.7 - 133 7 6.7 - 20.0 100.0 South Asia 40 35.0 12. 5.0 5.0 25 5.0 2.5 75 25 223 100.0 TOTAL PROJECIS 115 35.7 7.8 3.$ 16. 1.7 3S 6.1 3.3 1.7 20.0 100.0 TYPE OF LOAN Sector Loan 4 50.0 - - - - - - - - 50.0 100.0 Credit 6 147 16.7 - - - - - - - 66.7 100.0 Area Development 36 41.7 - 5.6 38.9 - - 5.6 - - 8.3 100.0 Fishery I - - - - - - 100.0 100.0 Irrigation & Drainage 32 40.6 25.0 3.1 6.3 6.3 12. - - - 6.3 100.0 Livestock 3 - - - 66.7 - - - - - 33.3 100.0 Agroindustty 9 5S.6 - 11.1 - - - - - - 33.1 100.0 Perennial Crops S 20.0 - - - - - 40.0 20.0 - 20.0 100.0 Research & Extenslon 7 14.3 - - - - - - - - 85.7 100.0 Forestry 10 20.0 - - - - - 30.0 30.0 20.0 - 100.0 Other 2 50.0 - - 50.0 - - - - - - 100.0 TOTAL PROJECIS 115 35.7 7.8 33 16.5 1.7 35 6.1 35 1.7 20.0 100.0 Source: Staff Appraisal Reports for Agriculture and Rural Development Projects. Page 14 Salinization and Waterlogging. The lack of adequate drainage is one of the most common weaknesses in irrigation system design, and the failure to maintain the system is the most common implementation problem. The loss of land to waterlogging in Pakistan is an important land use problem, so most recent projects are aimed at preventing declining crop yields rather than at improving them. As a consequence, they have begun to address the complex issues of farmer participation and incentives to maintain irrigation systems. Salinization and waterlogging is mentioned in 14 percent of East and Southern Africa projects (mainly in Sudan) and in 13 percent of South Asia projects, where there are a great number of large-scale irrigation projects. For instance, the cumulative ef'ect of many surface irrigation projects in the Indus river valley has caused the water table to rise dramatically during the last 10 years. Pakistan's extensive irrigation systems were developed largely without provision for subsurface drainage and minimal provision for surface drainage. Most of the recent irrigation projects in Pakistan are for the prevention of waterlogging. Projects such as Pakistan's Fourth Drainage and Left Outfall Drainage I indicate that the water table is less than 6 feet below the surface in 22 percent of the Indus basin. Land Clearna and Encroachment. Land clearing problems are caused by population encroachment into forest areas and onto unsuitable soils, or by, the growth of land extensive farming systems (e.g., slash and burn agriculture) into areas that previously did not support any agriculture. Such issues are raised in about 6 percent of projects. In many cases farmers will use logging roads to move into forest areas after they have been logged. By contrast, population growth in extremely densely populated countries causes some people to be pushed to marginal lands, including hillsides that were once covered by trees. Some projects also have land clearing components, an issue that will be dealt with in a later section. Three different types of projects have been developed to deal with land clearing problems caused by encroachment. The first type converts degraded forests to managed plantations, as happened in the Ghana Oil Palm project. Squatters are either forced out of the project area or resettled in other regions. This improves land use in the project area but little information is available on how the squatters were resettled or whether they migrated to other equally sensitive areas. A second type of projects gives conditional land rights to squatters for growing trees or other products, as is the case in the Philippines PICOP project. The purpose is to reduce short-term incentives to mine land resources, and to provide longer-term incentives to make better use of them. The PICOP program has turned squatters into legitimate farmers by giving them conditional land rights to plant trees in degraded forest areas, and by guaranteeing a market and price for the trees produced under the project. This project also has experienced some problems. Recently many of the original farmers in the project have beeft replaced by smallholder farmers or by mill workers; nonetheless, the use of conditional land rights as an incentive for long-term resource management is an important attempt to improve resource management. The final type of projects dealing with encroachment gives full land Page 15 transfer rights to encroachers, thus enabling them to use land as collateral for borrowing. This makes it possible for them to make longer term investment in their land. In Thailand, a land titling project is giving secure tenure to established squatters, so that they will be able to plan and invest in the longer term and have access to credit and to government agricultural programs. Siltation and Erosion. Siltation and erosion problems are identified in mountain watersheds and within surface irrigation systems. Siltation is a major problem for irrigation projects that are located in regions with degraded watersheds. For instance, in Indonesia the Upland Agriculture and Conservation Project includes a watershed protection component which was implemented after an irrigation project downstream proved to have significant siltation problems. Erosion prevention is a justification for most watershed protection projects. An example is the pilot project to improve watershed development in India. A regional plan cutting across farm boundaries was developed to stabilize soils and improve water retention in a semi-arid environment. Deforestation and Other Issues. The other problems cited in project reports have actually received more publicity th&an those already mentioned, but they constitute very few projects in the context of agriculture and rural development lending. They include deforestation due to fuelwood collection and logging, and the overuse of agricultural chemicals such as. pesticides and fertilizers. Many forestry plantations are justified on the basis of the benefits from actively managing forests previously degraded by poorly conceived logging. Social forestry projects have always mentioned fuelwood scarcity as a problem. Finally, pesticide and fertilizer runoff in a project area is identified as a problem only in irrigation projects. Although the project rationales are sometimes tenuously linked to projects, they provide useful background information on major resource issues. The agriculture and rural development projects with resource management as major justification include social forestry, watershed protection, and irrigation drainage. By contrast, for projects with poor records of sustainable resource management, the rationale sometimes evaluates resource issues extensively, but at other times contains no reference to them. These projects include those dealing with resettlement, livestock credit, and irrigation. Surprisingly, the projects that paid particular attention to resource issues right from the beginning include the settlement projects in Brazil and Indonesia, both of which had very poor records of sustainable resource management. Finally, for a large number of projects it was difficult to determine their implications for resource management, including agricultural extension, research, and area development. The Project Externalities: Lack of Project Documentation The review of lateral and temporal externalities in Agriculture and Rural Development Projects reveals that documentation of potential externalities is haphazard and generally inadequate. Most projects are narrowly focused and fail to systematically consider external problems or benefits. The existing methods for dealing with externalities are not well applied in most projects and sometimes may not even be applicable (see Page 16 Pearce, 1985). In the few instances that methods have been used to calculate benefits or costs, they have been unique solutions that follow no particular guidelines. Finally, the projects with the highest degree of potential environmental risk in the project region also have the greatest potential for both positive and negative externalities, neither of which have, been quantitatively included in the project rate of return, either directly or with sensitivity analysis. The temporal or future-generation potential impact of projects presents very special problems for project evaluation. This review indicates that the Bank does not have a systematic way to evaluate future-generation benefits or problems -- either quantitatively or qualitatively. The void of information on temporal externalities may 'not be due to neglect. In questioning project officers and specialists, there was a general consensus that the current methods for evaluating the long-term impact of projects are inadequate. For instance, project benefits are projected over 30 years, but most mid-term evaluations are done after 2-3 years, and ex-post project evaluations are completed after between 7 and 10 years. Illustrative of the problems associated with identifying and quantifying project externalities is the Sri Lanka Forest Development Project, which involves planting some teak that would not be harvested for over 50 years. For such long periods of time, the discounting of project not benefits at rates equivalent to the opportunity cost of capital reduces them to trivial levels. In the Forest Development Project example, the project was justified primarily on benefits other than teak production. Very few documents speculate on the future benefits or problems that would stem from the projects. Only about 20 percent of all projects speculate on the future impacts on land and water use, beyond the scope of the original project (see Table 6). The type of projects paying attention to temporal externalities are those involving resettlement, land titling, watershed protection, and irrigation and drainage, but they do not follow any special pattern. The consequences are dealt with in very general terms and not much weight is given to them in the project design. Lateral project externalities involve problems or benefits that affect the area outside of the project. Most project documents narrowly focus on the impact in the project area. As a consequence, only about 35 percent of the projects report any kind of lateral project impact (see table 6). The region where Lhe fewest lateral problems are mentioned is Latin America and the Caribbean, probably because of the many credit projects in that region. The documentation for credit projects generally does not contain any reference to lateral project benefits. Page 17 Table 6. Percent of Agriculture and Rural Development projects that cite temporal or lateral externalities, 1983*1985. Figues are row percents of each arentality iye by region or by loan type TEMPORAL OR LATERAL EXTERNALITIES CITED IN PROJECTS Temporal Externalities Lateral Externalities No. of None Not None Not Projgt Benefit Cited Problem Agylicable Benefit Cited Problem Awlicable REGION East and South Africa 21 9.5 71.4 4.8 143 23.8 52.4 9.5 14.3 Western Africa 18 16.7 83.3 - - 22.2 61.1 16.7 - Latin America/Caribbean 21 - 85.7 4.8 9.5 4.8 76.2 9.S 93 East Asia and Pacific is 13.3 46.7 26.7 13.3 33.3 33.3 20.0 133 South Asia 40 27.5 60.0 23 10.0 25.0 473 17.S 10.0 TOTAL PROJECTS 11s 15.7 68.7 6.1 9.6 21.7 53.9 14.8 9.6 TYPE OF IDAN Sectoran 4 25.0 50.0 - 25.0 25.0 50.0 - 25.0 Credit 6 - 833 - 16.7 - 83.3 - 16.7 Area Development 36 83 77.8 11.1 2.8 19.4 61.1 16.7 2. Fishery 1 - - - 100.0 - - - 100.0 Irrigation & Drainage 32 219 71.9 6.3 - 21.9 S6.3 21.9 - Liestock 3 - 66.7 33.3 - 33.3 33.3 33.3 - Agroindustry 9 - 778 - 22.2 - 77.8 - 22.2 . Perennial Crops 5 - 100.0 - - 20.0 60.0 20.0 - Research & Extension 7 - 28.6 - 71.4 - 28.6 - 71.4 Forestry 10 60.0 40.0 - - 70.0 20.0 10.0 - Other 2 50.0 50.0 - - 50.0 - S0.0 - TOTAL PROJECIS 115 15.7 68.7 6.1 9.6 21.7 539 14.8 9.6 Source: Staff Appraisal Reports for Ariculture and Rural Development Projects. Page 18 Putting the documentation problems aside, the projects with the most externality problems involve large changes in land use. These projects include settlement, irrigation, livestock, and perennial crops. Ironically, many of the same projects have both potential positive and negative externalities. *For instance, the problems associated with land clearing include possible erosion, siltation, and future loss of production if the land is overused. But land clearing and settlement can have external benefits by taking pressure off of densely populated land elsewhere and even of overpopulated urban regions. Perennial tree crops that replace degraded forests may prevent erosion and decline' in resources. Thus, the evaluation of externality issues is dependent on the level of sustainable development that is possible in a region, and this is very difficult to determine from Bank documentation. The Project Trends: Emerging Themes In Resource Management Incentives There-is much to learn from sustainable management problems experienced in past projects. A general trend ascertained from the review is that projects generally are moving in two complementary directions. One direction is towards sector adjustment lending to aid in macro-policy reforms, including pricing, taxation, and marketing arrangements. The second direction is towards an emphasis on smallholder agriculture or forestry, partly because of the realization that both equity and resource management goals can be achieved through local participation. A number of projects are aimed at involving local populations in alleviating resource problems by creating incentives for them to improve resource management. The success or failure of resource management must be considered in a wider context than just improved agricultural production. The change in land use, the rules governing land use, and the value of the land as well as of the products from the land must be taken into consideration. What may be good for a small group or individual may not be good for society as a whole. Attempts to rehabilitate degraded forests may not involve any social benefits if the problem is just moved to another region because squatters are displaced by plantations. Likewise, water misuse in an irrigation scheme can have serious downstream consequences. An agricultural project in a traditional grazing area may lead to overuse of land and conflict between farmers and livestock owners. The central issue is whether incentives for those who use land or water are compatible with the goals of improving overall resource management. In this section the framework established earlier is utilized to assess some of the major issues surrounding incentives for resource management discerned from the project review. Transitions From Low Intensitl AMriculture, The first theme is that population or animal growth its pressure on traditional forms of agriculture in many regions. As indicated in Table 5, about 16 percent of the project rationales cite overuse as a problem in the project area. When population growth puts pressure on traditional agricultural systems, old incentives may no longer be appropriate and could lead to misuse of land. Often both government and farmers are slow to respond to such changes, which may involve moving from land extensive to more land intensive farming Page 19 systems. In land extensive farming systems--including many of those in Africa-- clearing new land or shortening traditional rotations may cause soil fertility declines. New incentives must be developed to intensify production on the same areas or to encourage populations to move to new regions. The transition from customs and rules governing behavior in low intensity systems to those required for high intensity systems involves a substantial change in the incentive structures for land management. But knowledge of smooth transitions from low intensity to high intensity agriculture are still not well developed, and many problems have evolved when projects recommended modern systems of land management without taking into consideration the existing traditional practices. The goal of sustainable resource management is partly responsible for the change in emphasis from large-scale to smallholder farms. In many large plantation projects, squatter populations engaged in low intensity agriculture must be relocated because they are considered a underlying cause of resource deterioration. The problems associated with the first Ghana Oil Palm project have already been mentioned. But the Ghana Oil Palm II project shifted its emphasis to smallholders, after the first project found it difficult to relocate people from the project region to another area. In the context of the need for agricultural intensification, small farmers often are blamed in project documentation for their alleged short- term and nearsighted use of resources to produce food and obtain fuelwood. Although smallholders can be very efficient resource managers, problems can arise because their resources are so few and the risks they face are large. The trend toward smallholder projects. by the Bank is partly to alleviate such problems by giving small farmers secure tenure and encouraging long- term resource management. Several examples of the change from large to smallholder projects help illustrate this point. Forestry projects of 8 to 10 years ago were almost entirely plantation projects run by forestry departments. More recently, projects have included extensive smallholder components. One of the first smallholder forestry projects was the PICOP project in the Philippines. Squatters were causing degradation in the project areas. Instead of removing the squatters from the forests and relocating them elsewhere, the project gave them conditional land rights to grow trees along with an assured market in the pulp mill. If the squatters had been forced into another region, the problem would have just resurfaced there. Similarly, early tree crop projects in Indonesia were run by government parastatals. Because of resource management problems, incentives for resource management projects like the Nucleus Estates and Smallholders project now are involving small farmers in long-term development. Farmers were allocated 3 hectares for tree crops and gardens in an area where previously there was poor land management due to shifting cultivation. Channin Markets and Prices. Commodity prices have a significant impact on resource management. Pricing as a conservation tool needs more emphasis given the opportunities of the Bank in terms of emphasis on program lending. Although there were several sector loans between 1983 and 1985, they did not explicitly address sustainable resource management issues. Also, the opening of new land and changes in market prices have had Page 20 important implications for resource management. If the price of a commodity such as fuelvood is high or flares up very fast, the short-term response will be to harvest existing supplies until they run out. The mining of renewable resources such as fuelvood means that the cost of producing and replacing the product is not factored into the price. As a consequence of high profit margins, present stock may be drawn down at the expense of future generations. One project that has addressed such issues is Malawi Wood Energy II, which designed a program to collect resource taxes on wood harvested from the bush. Of equal concern may be a price for a commodity that is too low. Artificially low prices can mean there will be few incentives to produce a commodity, so there will be few incentives to extensively manage land for production of the commodity. Food crops or trees will be produced for consumption rather than income. An example is the case of gum in Sudan. The government over a period of years had set the price of gum at below the world market price. Because fuelwood prices were not held artificially low and since gum comes from the acacia senegal tree which can be used as fuelwood, there was little incentive to maintain tree stocks for gum production, and a greater incentive to harvest the trees for fuelvood. Thus both artificially high and low prices have significant implications for land management. One reason that farmers are often blamed for poor land management decisions is that commodity prices which have risen dramatically mean that - farmers' short-term profits take precedence over long-term management practices. As fuelwood prices have risen in many African cities, the response has been to clear trees from the perimeter of cities. The dilemma is that the price is too low to justify planting costs, but it is high enough to justify clearing existing stocks. The solution to such dilemmas is not one-dimensional, and may involve such issues as land rights, subsidies to grow trees, or collecting resource taxes, as has been the case in the Malawi Wood Energy II Project. The opening of new land by building access to new markets also can cause short-term harvesting of resources at the expense of future generations. Between 1983 and 1985 many large-scale, second-phase agriculture or plantation projects were followed by those focusing on smallholders because of the problems encountered in early projects that involved opening access to new land. One of the main problems of the early Brazil Northwest settlement projects was that the land size per farmer was quite large. Because one family could not farm 100 hectares with their own labor, the excess land would either be harvested for timber resources or rented out to tenants. Farmers eager to establish their claim on land would remove trees and sell them as a way to demonstrate that the land belonged to chem. Learning from these problems, the latest project provides much smaller holdings for settlement. The goal is to discourage deforestation that resulted from land demarcation and to provide a farm size that can more adequately be handled with family labor. Induced Innovations and Non-Point Pollution. The goal of induced innovations is to create a system of incentives for farmers to adopt a set of practices that will increase production, which in some cases fails to take into consideration the downstream or offsite environmental effects. But in many cases cumulative decision of many farmers to improve production Page 21 can cause what is called non-point pollution, as is the case for the overuse of some fertilizers that run off into streams and rivers. Bank-supported projects that focus narrowly on production often fail to take such problems into consideration, including many of the area development projects. A recent project that has incorporated a wider perspective is the India Pilot Project for Rainfed Areas. In such project a regional perspective is adopted that allows off-farm benefits and problems to be incorporated into project goals. The major thrust of the project is to develop arid lands according to their capability, including improvement in bunding techniques to improve water retention and proper drainage. Non-arable land would be protected through brushwood and stone dams, farm forestry, and reforestation. Examples of methods making maximum use of organic fertilizers and encouraging specific rather than general pest control measures can be found in the Burkina Faso area development projects (Volta Noire and Hauts-Bassins and more recent projects). Local Enforcement of Resource Management. Land rights are 'another factor affecting resource management incentives. Many projects contain land titling components as part of area development schemes. The rationale for formal land titling is that farmers are more likely to invest in, and to secure credit for, land for which they have secure tenure. But land titling will only work in regions where land has become relatively scarce, and where the traditional rules governing traditional ownership of the land have become outmoded. For example, giving itinerant farmers formal title to land they are going to abandon in a few years in a fallow farming system will not - provide them with any incentive to invest in longer-term resource management practices. In many cases local customs prevail over formal title to land. Also, giving title to farmers in remote regions where land values are low, credit is unavailable, or extension services ron-existent will do little to provide incentives for sustainable resource management. Other programs that complement local traditions for resource management would be more effective. The Botswana Livestock Project considered land tenure as a possible solution to the problems of overgrazing, but concluded that there would be difficulties in getting land disputes settled in an equitable way. But land is still fairly abundant in Botswana, and rather than recommend pasture fencing as a solution to resource management problems, a better understanding and gradual modification of the traditional system of land use might have been a better solution to the problems of pasture management. In the context of transition from land abundance to land scarcity, land titling in conjunction with other development programs can have a significant impact on long-term resource management, as has been demonstrated in the recently completed research on Thailand (Feder et al., 1986). The desire to influence property rights for land, trees. and water to conform to project goals is justified, but the complex pat.-erns of existing formal and most importantly informal rules governing the pattern of existing land use rights must be more thoroughly recognized and understood. Summary. Some of the common causes of sustainable resource management problems in developing countries are population pressure, poverty, inappropriate incentives, and deliberate transformation of the natural environment by public action without recognition of the consequences. -Some of the questions raised by the review included whether subsidies or high prices encourage overproduction or overharvesting, whether insecure land tenure leads to short-term incentives to overuse land, or whether Page 22 encouraging squatters to manage degraded land is better than other management forms. Many of the solutions to resource problems revolve around finding suitable incentives for practicing sustainable resource management in combination with improving income and increasing production. As a first step in addressing such issues, a wide range of formal and informal issues mentioned above must be recognized as important. IV.SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SUCCESS AND FAILURE: PROJECT EXAMPLES FROM INDIA, SUDAN, AND BRAZIL The project review to this point has been very general covering all subsectors and a vast range of resource problems and benefits. In such a review generalities overshadow the details of why projects succeed or fail in resource management. In this section, three examples have been chosen review the evolution of resource management for three projects: social forestry in India, rainfed mechanization in Sudan, and resettlement in Northwest Brazil. Each of these projects contain important lessons for resource management. The social forestry projects in India demonstrate how resource problems can be resolved by involving local people in planting trees rather than through large-scale plantation projects. The Sudan rainfed mechanization projects highlight the sometimes conflicting goals between increased production and sustainable resource management. Finally, the Northwest development projects in Brazil illustrate how projects for rural development can end up in promoting unsustainable resource extraction due to the uneven completion of different components in the project. Social Forestry in India: Involving Smallholders in Resource Management Before 1978 the main type of forestry projects in India involved traditional plantation projects to provide feedstock to pulp mills. The Bank's Forestry Policy Paper in 1978 was instrumental in changing the emphasis of forestry projects away from such traditional assistance to a greater emphasis on rural development and local participation. Making the transition to social forestry somewhat easier, the last plantation project in India received negative publicity because it was alleged to be threatening the livelihood of tribals who depend on trees for income and medicines. Social forestry has been the primary forestry lending activity since 1978. The goal of the projects has been to motivate farmers and tribals to grow trees for their own needs and for the market. The first social forestry projects were implemented in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh (see Table 7). The original goal of the projects was to provide fuelwood to rural populations by establishing a multifaceted approach to forestry. All previous forestry projects in India were distant from densely populated rural areas or population centers and were not designed to meet the needs of rural people. The aim of the social forestry projects was to stem deforestation and encroachment in forest reserves by producing fuelwood and forest products within rural areas. Only the active participation of rural populations could help stem the deforestation problem. The Gujarat social forestry project goals include the establishment of community woodlots, afforestation of previously degraded lands, Page 23 establishment of strip plantations on roadsides, canals, and railroads, and the development of nurseries that will supply seedlings to the project and interested farmers. The woodlot component included two alternative approaches for communities. The community could provide all labor for establishing tho woodlot on local degradod land or they could allow the forestry department to plant the trees and they would maintain them. Under the first option the community would keep more of the wood or profits than under the second option. In both cases the forestry department would be fully reimbursed for materials and planting costs. The staff appraisal report explicitly states that because social forestry is an innovative project, it is impossible to predict with certainty the villagers' and farmers' response to the community forestry approach. Project goals were purposely made flexible anticipating the need for mid-project corrections. The flexibility proved to be very important, because the community woodlots have not proved to be an effective way to provide fuelwood for rural areas. The community woodlots suffered from the many problems that involved collective action. Community collective action is very difficult unless there is a clear and overriding need for cooperation, such as is the case in many irrigation schemes where water distribution is dependent on cooperation. In the case of community woodlots there seemed to be no strong urgency associated with the fuelwood crisis that necessitated communal action on degraded land. The community woodlot approach would raise more collective issues than it would solve, such as who would get the benefits from the woodlot, who would guard the trees, and who would provide the labor to plant the trees. The incentives for more fuelwood production were not strong enough to draw the community together to act as a unified body. In addition, early social forestry programs involved the forestry department attempts to utilize villagers as laborers. The villagers perceived that the forestry department was really interested in gaining control over limiting their use of village land. The private incentives for individual farmers to plant trees were greater than those for the community. The smallholder tree farming part of the project, which was anticipated to be very minor, took off during the project execution. The government provided free seedlings and planting advice to farmers in order to encourage them to plant trees. The price of poles was high enough for a farmer to justify the time he spent growing trees. Fuelwood was a significant but secondary benefit from growing trees. Another incentive involved the rules and formal laws governing the use of land. In India the land ceiling laws exclude plantations, so large farmers could avoid the land ceiling laws by planting trees on part of their land. The success of the Gujarat social forestry project quickly led to planning and implementation of projects for other states. The states in India now involved with International Development Association assisted social forestry projects include Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Karnataka, aad Jammu, Kashmir and Haryana. As the projects evolved over time, the farm forestry component overshadowed even the forestry plantation parts of the projects (see Table 7). Because of criticism that the projects benefited mainly large farmers, a major new feature was added to later projects. Landless laborers were granted limited rights to grow trees on degraded forest area in West Bengal. Because of land scarcity in West Bengal and the incentive of secure tenure, tree growing by formerly landless laborers has been surprisingly successful. The social forestry projects in Page 24 India reflect how successful projects can generate a whole series of similar projects in other regions, how the projects change over time, and how land tenure can be a very powerful incentive for resource management in a land scarce society. Despite the success of the social forestry projects in India, several problems have arisen. The original goal of the projects was to provide fuelwood and alleviate environmental deterioration due to deforestation. Poles and fuelwood generally have been produced on fertile land on private farms and not in regions that are prone to erosion or deforestation. Fuelwood production is now considered a secondary rather than a primary goal of projects, so it is uncertain that the increased supply of-wood has caused a decrease in the need to harvest trees for fuel. People are still collecting wood from common land, and hillsides are still prone to deforestation and erosion problems. Concerns have also been raised over employment of landless laborers in regions with social forestry programs. Although later projects have included landless laborers in project areas, the establishment of tree farms may be to avoid the land ceiling laws which exclude plantations and also may result in reduced farm labor. The alternative land use for the farmers probably would have been labor-intensive cotton. Tree farms require extensive labor for initial clearing and planting, but.after the first year there is a significant reduction in the need for labor. Thus, a decline in labor needs may take place as a consequence of social forestry projects.' Finally, there is concern that fuelwood and pole markets will be oversupplied in the coming years, thus reducing the incentives to expand tree production further. In spite of such shortcomings, social forestry has been recognized as successful in making more productive use of existing land resources without any significant land degradation problems. If anything, switching from cotton to trees has had a beneficial impact on the environment. One part of the solution to the problems of pressure on traditional forests in India was not found in keeping people out, but rather in devising ways to assist people to grow fuelwood and poles for profit and for their own use. Page 25 Table 7. The plantation costs for social forestry projects in India, 1978.1984. F7gures are for column percents of total plantation costs SOCIAL FORESTRY COSTS BY PLANTATION TYPE 1978 1980 1982 1982 1982 1984 1984 Uttar West Jammu & Pradesh Gujarat Bengal Kashmir Haryana Karnataka Kerala PLANTATION TYPE Farm Forestry 8.0 10.0 56.0 43.0 45.0 80.0 81.0 Block/Degraded Forests 26.0 26.0 16.0 39.0 - 13.0 14.0 Strip Plantations 51.0 32.0 22.0 2.2 14.0 4.0 2.00 Village Woodlots 6.0 310 6.0 113 18.0 - - Other 9.0 1.0 - 4.5 23.0 3.0 3.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL PLANTATION 14.2 46.2 30.1 16.8 243 35.8 30.5 COSTS MiMlons of Dolla= Source: Staff Appraisal Reports for Agriculture and Rural Development Projects. Page 26 Sudan Rainfed Mechanization: Increased Production with Declining Yields The sometimes conflicting goals between increased production and sustainable resource management are illustrated in the mechanization projects in Sudan. * The rainfed mechanization projects were to promote large-scale, commercial agriculture in a region dominated by a low intensity, bush fallow system of agriculture. The projects were successful in increasing agricultural output by expanding the area under production, but resource problems developed during the execution of the projects. The consequence has been that more recent projects have emphasized the development and introduction of farming systems that have a better balance between production and resource conservation. The diversity of Sudan makes it an important case study for examining population growth and land resources. The development of commercial agricultural schemes in the central region has had an adverse impact on redistribution of income and on traditional occupations such as herding. The moqt striking feature of Sudan's agriculture is the dualism of the heavily funded and sometimes subsidized modern agricultural sector along with the relatively neglected traditional agriculture. The major irrigation corporations provide most of the cash crop production for the country,. producing sugar cane, cotton, and .vheat. In rainfed agriculture, the business farmers generally have large mechanized farms that use very few inputs, taking advantage of the natural fertility of newly plowed fields. The traditional sector produces mainly subsistence crops, and covers over 80 percent of Sudan's cropped area, reflecting the land extensive system of agriculture. The mechanized farming schemes in Sudan began in the 1940s when the management pattern of the Gezira irrigation schemes were transferred to rainfed areas to increase sorghum production. The goal of mechanization was to more fully utilize Sudan's vast land resources for agricultural production. The Bank's involvement began in 1968 when it financed the First Mechanization Project. The management of the large rainfed areas proved to be significantly different than the irrigation schemes, where small tenants were provided with very structured rules and planting regimes. With the development of the mechanization concept, the farm sizes became much larger, to approximately 250 to 500 hectares. In its early stages the first Bank- assisted project seemed to be going well, with promising yields and adequate resource management. However, many of the technical problems in the first project were covered by high fertility of the soil in previously uncultivated areas. As the project progressed and yields began to decline, it was realized that the farming systems for the rainfed areas must be altered and refined in order to maintain soil fertility and to insure that land resources were not overexploited. The first project paid very little attention to traditional, small farmers located in the project region. The Third Mechanization Project in Sudan, appraised in 1978, recognized both the dualism in rainfed agriculture and the resource management problems that developed in the first two projects. The staff appraisal report stated that the nation would greatly benefit from the cash crops produced by large- scale farming of the clay soils. The appraisal also recognized the importance of bringing mechanization to the smallholder farms, and included a pilot component for them. But in neither the large- nor small-scale Page 27 farming components had adequate systems of land resource management been introduced. Past attempts of large-scale farming were recognized as leading to land overuse and declining yields. By contrast, the problems anticipated in the smallholder compone.1t involved issues of the transition from herding and low input agricult-re to mechanized agriculture. The problems of increasing risk for small farmers in the low rainfall climate of the western region were never really addressed in the project. The goal of the Third Mechanization Project was to improve the productivity of both the large and small farmers through the introduction of a farming system that maintained soil fertility through the application of organic and chemical fertilizers. Although crop production from the business farms provided valuable food and other products for domestic consumption and for export, as was the case with previous projects, the yields in the mechanized farms continued to decline because of land overuse .combined with low input use. Due to the lack of knowledge of the appropriate land resources in the region and weak policy enforcement by the government, the business farms continued to clear new land and farmed it until soil fertility levels declined. The incentives for resource management in Sudan may illustrate some of the reasons why degradation continues to be a problem. The large business farmers live mainly in Sudan's cities, far away from their land. One way for the business farmers to increase profits is to reduce the costs of production. Expenditures on fertilizers and manures are costly in remote regions, so it is much easier to abandon land when its fertility declines and to farm new plots of land. This is possible because of Sudan's initial policy to open up new land to business farmers combined with its inability to enforce effective land management policies. *Low farming costs, reasonable international and domestic commodity prices, along with poorly enforced land management policies led to a rapid and uncontrolled exploitation of existing land resources, much of which used to be under low intensity management by traditional farmers. The traditional, small farmers live near their land. They have a longer-term stake in maintaining the regions resource base. The small farmers in the central region practice better resource management than the business farmers, but their low intensity farming practices result in lower yields and also a smaller yearly amount of land actually, placed under cultivation. Informal control by the villages has insured that there has not been the level of soil exploitation that exists on the business farms. The fairly low intensity use of the soils and the small farmers knowledge of how to manage moisture also are reasons that their fertility is not declining. The main problem experienced by the smallholder component of the project involved the risks of committing large capital outlays into regions in which rainfall patterns are so variable. In other regions such as Northern Sudan small farmers are causing sustainable resource management problems, reflecting the complexity involved in analyzing resource management issues. Many small farmers are abandoning their fields because of recent droughts and increasing population pressure in a fragile environment where low rainfall makes the environment very sensitive to overuse. In spite of the fact that the farmers in this region still practice a low intensity farm fallow system of agriculture, the shortening of fallow periods by traditional farmers is leading to land Page 28 degradation and desertification. Thus, resource problems associated with farm production in Sudan are not confined to large business farms. The dilemma for Sudan is how to manage the vast amount of land under low intensity herding and agriculture, much of which is perceived by outsiders as "empty *land." The mechanized farming scheme as one solution has been successful in increasing production on these lands, but at the expense of the land resource. The project was not successful in realizing the land management goals established in the staff appraisal report. Returning to the typology established earlier, the opening of new land to mechanized farming has led to overuse of land, a deterioration in the local ability to enforce resource management, few incentives to invest in improvements in soil fertility, and equity problems as business farmers increasingly have been using land that was under low intensity use by local, small farmers. The economic incentive for the business farmers was to practice low input agriculture over very large regions, a scale made possible by mechanization. The consequence is that they clear land and sell the wood to a city if applicable, farm the land until soil fertility declines, and move on to a new land. The production and land expansion goals developed far faster than the government's institutional capacity to enforce land use policies. Questions can be raised over whether the project introduced an inappropriate technology for land develqpment in areas with marginal levels pf rainfall. Another solution would have been the intensification of land use by the traditional, small farmers in the region. This would involve the development of infrastructure, advancing techniques for land management in semi-arid environments, sufficient economic incentives that farmers would be willing to make greater investment in their land., and determining ways to reduce the risk of crop failure in the region. In a fragmented way, this is the approach of the most recent bank-supported nbn-irrigation projects in Sudan, including drought recovery, altering stock routes to less sensitive regions, credit and agricultural services, and research for both large and small farmers (Western Savannah). The resource-related problems of the mechanization projects in Sudan have helped focus more attention on farming systems research, assistance to traditional farmers, and livestock problems in the region, but much more work is necessary to resolve the very complicated problems. Brazil Northwest Settlement: Rural Development or Resource Extraction? The Brazil northwest settlement projects have raised the most controversy over the implications of rural development for sustainable resource management in an underpopulated region. The projects have been the subject of a constant stream of criticism. Of particular concern has been the completion of roads into the region that has spawned unsustainable and uncontrollable development. The roads have allowed people to flow into the region seeking land, opportunity, and wealth, and it has also permitted the rapid, unsustainable extraction of natural resources. The main criticisms have been that the development of services in the region has not been able to keep pace with rapid population growth, fostering excessive resource extraction rather than sustainable rural development. The first major government participation in planning settlement Page Z9 programs for Brazil took place in the Northwest Frontier in the 1960s. These settlements were justified on the basis of national security and the aim to "link landless men to menless land." Settlement in the Northwest significantly differed from the earlier settlements in other parts of Brazil. The previous "spontaneous" settlement involved farmers with capital to invest in large farms. By contrast, in the Northwest the government took the leadership role rather than private corporations. It involved westward migration of landless poor to sparsely populated regions in Goias and Mato Grosso. The final frontier settlement started in the 1970s in the Amazon. The aim of this project was to take some of the population pressure off of the northeast region, to provide access to the fertile Amazon lands, and to grow food for urban populations in more developed parts of the country. Five Bank-supported projects in the Brazilian northwest settlement program were administered in three phases since 1981. The first phase was appraised in 1980 and involved three parallel projects, including (1) the paving of the BR-364 highway that leads directly into the Northwest region, (2) improving health and preventing malaria in the region, and (3) consolidating and improving agricultural development and environmental protection. The second phase involved the consolidation of existing communities in Mato Grosso region, through improving municipal roads, extension, education, and other support services. The third phase, appraised in 1983, introduced new settlements into an unpopulated region in Rondonia. This project includes land titling, road building, the establishment of seven growth or service centers, and many other components. The total project costs committed to all five projects between 1981 and 1985 was 1.1 billion dollars. The farming system in the Northwest is very land extensive. The settlement of the region initially 'involved the harvesting of forest resources, and then developing the agricultural potential of the region. The general cycle is that forests are cleared on part of the land owned by the farmer. The most valuable species are extracted and sold, and the remaining trees and bushes are burned to improve soil fertility. Then, either a single season of rice or several seasons - of annual crops are planted. Because of declining yields that result after several years of low input agriculture, the land subsequently may be used for low intensity cattle farming. The length of time that the land is farmed depends on the natural fertility of the soil. Soil improvement practices are difficult to undertake in remote regions and limited settler incomes also constrain investments in land. Upon depletion of the soil fertility, the farmers clear new area and the cycle begins again. Although this is a highly generalized picture of agriculture in the region, it does capture the very land extensive nature of the existing farming system in the Northwest region. Land ownership in Nato Grosso is highly skewed, with two percent of the farmers owning 78 percent of the land. Only 39 percent of the farmers own the land which they cultivate. The remainder are either squatters, renters or sharecroppers. However, the status of land ownership is very confused, with many areas having overlapping claims, particularly between settlers and large farmers. These conflicting claims have led to much social tension in the region. One goal of the Bank-assisted settlement projects was to eliminate tensions through settling of disputes over land titles. Squatters and farmers with legitimate claims to the land would be granted title to it. Page 30 Areas with no legitimate title would revert to the government for redistribution to new colonizers. Also, there is a large native population in the region, whose rights have not always been respected by settlers. A major problem in the first Bank-supported project was the large land holding size. *A new settler moving into the region could expect to be allotted plots of 100 to 200 hectares depending on the quality of the land. But the average waiting period for settlement plots was approximately 14 months. The soil quality in the region also was quite variable, with some quite unsuited for agriculture. The major cause of deforestation in the region is the clearing of land unsuited to agriculture and its subsequent abandonment. In some cases land was sold to large farmers, who could use the cleared land for cattle grazing. The most recent "new settlements" project (Rondonia) recommends a smaller farm size of 20 hectares for farms with good agricultural potential and 40 hectares for land with poor potential. The rationale for the smaller farm size is that one hundred hectares is too large to farm with only family labor and no machines. As indicated, most of the farmers moving into the region are poor and do not have access to capital to invest in their farms. This leads to several possible consequences (see Goodland, 1986). The land may be underutilized or placed under low intensity management such as cattle grazing. If the land is not of very high quality for agriculture, the trees still may be harvested from the land and sold. To avoid deforestation on land with low quality, the last project has instituted a more rigorous policy of land classification to insure that settlers have access to land suitable for agriculture. As indicated, the .new settlers have fewer financial resources than those in the previous settlement periods in Brazil. In a survey of settlers (see Henriques, 1986) in already established projects, three out of five migrated to the area because they had no land of their own. Almost one-half of the settlers came directly to their plots, 'hile the others had to wait to receive their land. In the more remote regions the main difficulties facing the settlers were the prevalence of diseases such as malaria, while those moving to the more established areas cited lack of transportation, land, or employment as their main problems. Because of the initial large farm sizes, many settlers could not farm all of their land, so they arranged to farm out parcels to sharecroppers, renters, or those who would accept payment in kind. But three of four settlers and one of two sharecroppers or laborers felt that they were better off after migrating to Rondonia than they were in their previous place of residence. Recent reports from the project area point out that there are imbalances between the infrastructure and the service development components of the project. The road building generally has been completed on schedule, but the health, technical assistance, and storage components have lagged behind during execution. Added to the poor service problems is that settlers and other migrants have been attracted Into the area at far higher rates than expected, putting even greater pressure on services and local resource management. Despite all of the problems in the region settlers continue to stream into the area. In the face of great hardships present in such remote regions, the lure of land and land tenure proved to be a very attractive incentive for poor farmers or laborers from other regions in Brazil. Page 31 The settlement projects are high risk because they are located in sensitive environments and they involve large changes in land use. They have the potential for extensive long-run benefits for Brazil. But returning to the typology established earlier, the opening up of land through the completi6n of roads makes it convenient to transport goods out of the region for export or for use in higher population density areas in other parts of the country. In the case of Rondonia, the bank-supported agri:.Lltural and social services have lagged behind the completion of roads into the region. The farming practices imported from other regions were not always applicable in the new region. A greater than expected number of farmers moving into the region were poor and could not invest anything but their labor in the land. The confusion over land tenure has caused uncert'ainty over whether farmers should make long-term investments in their land. The existing insecurity of land tenure, lack of support services, and lack of capital encouraged farmers to harvest the trees from the land and to farm the soils for short-term gains. It is interesting that conditional land tenure was used as an incentive to improve resource management in India and the Philippines, but in Brazil tenure was so successful in attracting poor farmers to the Northwest that it caused resource management problems. The incentives for long-term resource management were not in place and in fact may have been largely unknown at the beginning of the settlement projects in northwest Brazil. New stable farming systems take time to develop, and a process of trial and error is inevitable as farmers experiment with different land use patterns. The current question is whether the incentives for short-term resource mining can be turned into longer-term resource stewardship. The opening of new land for cultivation with the unintended consequence of short-term resource extraction has raised many new problems for the region. These problems include how to 'involva farmers that have already migrated into the region in sustainable resource management practices, how to make up for problems imposed on indigenous, native populations, how to expand services without further encouraging new in-migration, and how to protect .the remaining resources in the region. The high rates of population growth, the lack of decentralization of decision making authority, the slow process of establishing land tenure, and the slow pace of developing agricultural and social services have hindered the long- term development of Rondonia. V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION An important lesson to be learned from this project review is that resource management generally is not an explicit, primary objective of most projects. As might be expected, the primary objectives of projects are to increase production and farmer income, while resource management is an implicit and often ignored goal. The only real way for resource management to be an important project activity is for it to be part of the major objectives of the project. In this way pricing issues or land tenure arrangements that might be important incentives for use of resources would have to be addressed at the inception of the project. In some cases land extensive farming systems have been made obsolete by population growth. Resource management in such a context would involve nothing short of major changes in land tenure and other incentives for production. In other cases new agricultural technologies may be the answer. Whatever the answer, Page 32 resource management should be a primary goal of the project rather than a subsidiary one. Summary of Project Review This review has determined that most agriculture and rural development projects have a major emphasis on improved production and generation of income for farmers, but relatively fewprojects have dealt explicitly with long-term resource management issues. Only about 50 percent of projects mention resource problems in the project rationale, which means that fully half of the projects address sustainable resource management as an implied rather than an explicit part of the project. The-projects with sustainable resource management as a significant goal include social forestry, watershed protection, and irrigation and drainage. The projects with greater resource problems include those with large changes in land use or in sensitive and in many cases marginal environments, including resettlement, livestock credit, and irrigation. Finally, for most projects it is very difficult to determine their implication for resource use, including agricultural extension, research, and many area development projects. Many projects with the greatest resource problems involved a great deal* of attention to resource issues right from the beginning. In such projects the Bank was aware of potential problems, but failed or was unable to act to prevent them. The settlement projects in Brazil and Indonesia have extensive documentation and reviews of resource issues. In fact, a major justification for Bank support for these projects was that resource issues were more likely to be ignored without Bank participation. All settlement projects involve land clearing, so there have been a series of studies on the best method for establishing new farms and settlements without compromising the environment in a serious way. The consistent problems in such projects indicate that the Bank has not been able to develop an effective way to deal with the very complicated resource problems arising in settlement projects. The irrigation projects typically mention concern over sedimentation, siltation, salinization, and waterlogging. Many of the current projects in Pakistan are to prevent further waterlogging, and detailed reports and plans have been produced on how to accomplish this task. The Mahaweli scheme in Sri Lanka is ai irrigation project that involves extensive land clearing, and many studies have been completed to determine the resource implications of the projects. In spite of such general awareness of potential problems, most of the above projects have not been able to prevent them. Resource management issues should receive much more attention in credit projects than they have in the past. The goals of credit projects are to disburse loans, with no mention of the implication of the loans for land use. Evaluation of project success is based on the loan disbursement rate rather than on how effectively the money was utilized in promoting sound rural development and resource management. Many cattle ranching projects in Latin'America have been credit projects. The cattle projects have involved clearing of land for ranching, but they have not come under the same criticism or review as the settlement projects. The rural industry projects generally assess the potential Page 33 environmental impact of such activities as crop processing or sawmills on the environment, but generally do not assess the effect that increased demand for timber or cash crops might have on resource management. Establishing rural industries might cause a significant change in land use, such as moving from subsistence to a cash crop, or increasing the rate of timber or fuelw6od harvesting. Rural industry projects generally do not contain any analysis of the environmental impact that such changes might have for a region. Area development projects generally focus on increased production or improved farmer income rather than resource management. The reason for this is partially a methodological one. Production can be easily quantified and entered into a rate of return analysis, but the value of preserving resources for future generations or preventing resource problems outside of the project area is more difficult to quantity. Even for projects with a major goal of resource management, such as India Watershed Management, the project is justified on the basis of the increased production compared to what would have occurred without the project. A trend towards smallholder projects is apparent in Bank-assisted agriculture and rural development projects. The emphasis on smallholders has been one means to improve resource management. The displacement of squatters with a state run tree crop plantation or with a timber plantation only moves the problem to another location. To avoid s'Uch problems some projects provide smallholders with incentives for resource management. Thi PICOP project in the Philippines involved squatters in growing trees for a pulp mill in a region with degraded forests. In India the social forestry project encouraged tree farming to prevent encroachment ond overharvesting of forest reserves. As a consequence of the trend toward smallholder development projects, incentives are often raised as an important issue for projects with a significant emphasis on resource management. For example, insecure land tenure is often identified as a problem for long-term resource management by farmers. In Nepal the government took control of communal forests to stem encroachment, but this made matters worse because control of encroachment then shifted from community to state responsibility. Villagers felt less willing to comply with the state laws than with the informal rules of their community, so resource degradation increased. In Thailand the land titling projects give secure tenure to farmers so that they can borrow money and invest in their land. But in the Bra:il settlement projects, the land titling component has led to great tensions between existing large farmers and settlers. Bank Management Issues Land and water use management practices may be improved by several possible methods. As a consequence of interviewing technical specialists and project officers, a variety of methods were recommended for improving land and water resource management. This is not a prescriptive list, but rather reflects the diverse views of specialists that were interviewed. The environmental impact statements in the Staff Appraisal Reports are generally viewed as an ineffective way of dealing with land and water use Page 34 issues. Most of the statements are disclaimers, indicating that the project is environmentally sound. Nevertheless, the statements do indicate potential problems that may arise in the project. Several respondents indicated that the environmental impact statement does sensitize the project officer to consider the environment as an aspect of project planning. However, the gerieral consensus is that the impact statements do very little to affect the way projects are planned. In fact, the projects with the most land and water use problems generally have the longest environmental impact statements, but they may not have much impact on project design or implementation. Training of project officers was recommended as a means to better incorporate land and water use management practices into project design. Project officers are the key to project design, so their greater awareness of land and water use issues may lead to incorporation of better management practices in projects at an early stage. The project officers interviewed generally favored training on resource management issues. Training sessions could be tailored to different countries or regions, so as to be more specific and relevant. The drawback of training is that short sessions may have little impact on project design. Once the sessions are completed, there is no assurance that the content of the training would be transferred into project design or implementation. Nevertheless, training and greater awareness of resource issues and options might be essential for integrating lateral and temporal resource management issues into projects at an early, stage. Monitoring and evaluation of project impact on land and water resources might be an effective way to insure resource management issues are integrated inco projects. Monitoring of salinity and the level of chemicals in ground water recharge should and in many cases is undertaken in water projects. The monitoring of the impact of a project on the environment would appear to be an ideal way to detect land and water use problems before they become too serious. Indeed, well conceived project monitoring and evaluation definitely could be useful in providing baseline surveys and subsequent follow-up analysis for understanding how land and water resources change over time. The problem with the monitoring approach is that the problems must be identified in advance and many monitoring subcomponents of projects become closely wedded to the goals of the larger project, and routine data collection does not result in significant evaluation of the results. An important lesson to be learned from the project review is that* resource management generally is not an explicit, primary objective of most projects. As might be expected, the primary objectives of projects are to increase farmer income and improve productivity; resource management generally is an implied goal. The only real way for resource management to be an important project activity is for it to be part of the major objectives of most projects. In this way the pricing issues or the land tenure issues that might be important for incentives to use resources efficiently would have to be addressed at the conception of the project. Different situations will exist for almost every project. In some cases the land extensive farming system has been made obsolete by population growth. Resource management in such a context would involve nothing short of major changes in land tenure and other incentives for production. In other cases new agricultural techniques may be the answer. Whatever the answer, Page 35 resource management would have to be elevated to a higher level of priority than is currently being practiced. But the questions also can be raised whether it is better to require resource management issues to be addressed in every project, or whether efforts should be doncentrated on a few of the most relevant ones. A project with major resource management emphasis has the advantage of making land or water use issues the core rather than the periphery of the project. The insights gained from treating land and water use issues in depth in a few relevant projects may be more important than spreading the effects thinly over a large number of projects. The risk of requiring land and water management issues to be addressed in every project is that they may be trivialized. Conclusion Most countries of the world are beyond the point at which resources are considered boundless. In understanding resource problems in developing countries, the changing levels of incentives for sustainable resource use must be understood at different levels of development and for regions with varying resource endowments. Agricultural development in India has been able to sustain ever increasing population densities, but the Sahel has been unable to keep up with population growth even though population densities are very low. Thus, the main difficulties involved in determining resource problems and externalities have been the evaluation of the deviation from sustainable development for countries or regions at very different levels of development and within different agroclimatic zones. Sustainable resource management implies a process of adapting to the continuing evolution of changes in human populations, technologies, and socipeconomic. conditions. Unfortunately, the Bank 'has a very inconsistent record in effectively dealing with long-term resource management issues. Resource management problems are not difficult to identify, but the reasons and.solutions for the problems are much more elusive. Erosion is a problem when silt builds up in canals and dams, shortening their economic life. Overgrazing is a problem when the range fails to support the number of cattle needed by a herding population for subsistence. The simple solution to such problems is to reduce silt and to bring the livestock/range ratio back into equilibrium. However, the erosion problem may involve rural populations pushed into catchment areas because they have nowhere else to go to meet their subsistence needs. The need to reduce cattle in a region may run counter to traditional patterns of common property resource management. Complicating matters further, the ability for the resource base to produce food, fodder, and other products is not fixed at a given level, but rather varies according to the level of technology and the way in which resources are utilized by human populations. But obvious technical solutions to increased production may not be the best way to reach sustainable resource management if they are not compatible with existing local systems of resource management. Trying to understand resource problems without understanding the complicated interrelationships among the existing technical, economic, and social factors underpinning the land use system is not possible. Resource problems must be understood within the context of traditional farming or resource use systems that have become outmoded because of factors such as Page 36 changing human populations or the opening of new land or markets. In order to understand resource problems, we must have some understanding of traditional resource use and its evolution over time, and the effect of public policies on incentives for sustainable resource management. Questions that need to be answered are what are the forces that are pushing farmers into catchmdnt and what are the changes that can be made to adapt changing requirements to land use systems. For regions at different levels of agroclimate and socioeconomic development, we need to understand changes in land tenure, price structure, technologies, and other features before it is possible to understand how to bring resource use back into equilibrium. Recently projects have been moving in two different but complementary directions. One direction is towards sector adjustment loans to influence macroeconomic policy, including taxation, pricing, and marketing reform. The second direction is on improving the incentives for smallholders in a variety of agricultural projects, which has inevitably involved the Bank in social issues such as land tenure. Taking such trends into consideration, six issues emerge from this research, which may form the basis for needed research concerning sustainable resource management in the context of Bank policy and projects. 1. Resource Stress Points and Agricultural Change. In the course of agricultural development stress points in resource management may be reached in which current technologies are no longer appropriate for, or in equilibrium with, the social or economic conditions. More - research needs to be focused on these stress points in the evolution of agriculture, periods in which there are deviations from sustainable resource management practices. 2. Local Incentives. The local incentives for long-term resource management must be better understood. There is an extensive literature on the adoption of innovation for improved production, but not as much on the incentives or appropriate conditions for long-term resource management. Just as prices are important incentives for farmers to grow particular kinds of crops, insecurity of land tenure, user groups, and traditional farming practices or other factors may explain why farmers are or are not willing to make long-term investments in their land. 3. Macroeconomic Policy. Recent sectoral loans have focused on the need for changes in pricing, taxation, and other economic reforms, but none of them have reviewed the implications of such changes for sustainable resource management. More attention should be paid to economic policies as tools for encouraging long-term resource management. 4. Methodology. The application of existing methodologies to include externalities into project rates of returns have been haphazard and inconsistent. The existing methodologies for including externalities into project rates of return need to be reviewed and more consistently implemented in Bank projects. 5. Environmental Risk. Economic risk is evaluated in most projects, but generally there is no serious analysis of environmental risk. This review has utilized a very simplistic method to relate project Page 37 characteristics such as land use change and type of region to anticipated environmental impact. There is a need to develop better methods to assess the degree of environmental risk for projects. 6. Rural Poor. The farming practices of the rural poor are in many circumstances part of the reason that environmental problems are encountered in the project region. The potential role of the rural poor in causing and/or alleviating resource management problems needs to be better understood. The review has revealed that resource management issues are an implicit rather than an explicit component of most projects. One of the most effective measures to address resource problems as an explicit issue is to involve those who are part of the problem as part of the solution. This simple recommendation actually involves a complex task at the project design stage of identifying why incentives for sustainable resource management are inappropriate in the context of a changed system of production, be it population growth, opening new land and markets, or induced changes in technologies. The critical points at which farming systems become out of equilibrium with the natural resource base need to be examined in the context of a deviation from sustainable resource use for given socioeconomic conditions and agroclimatic potential. APPENDIX A THE ANTICIPATED IMPACT OF RECENT AGRICULTURE AND RRAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, 1983-86. ................................**************** REGIONnEASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA **.*************************************.***.*** PROJECT COUNTRY PROJECT NAME SUBSECTOR YEAR BANK IDA PRO- ENVIRONMENTAL LATERAL TEMPORAL ID LOAN CREDIT JECT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT COST 2BOTALO4 Botswana LAND NGT. & LIVESTOCK LIVESTOCK 1985 10.7 0.0 17.8 MINOR PROBLEMS PROBLEM NONE CITED 28UIATO2 Burundi FORESTRY It FORESTRY 1986 0.0 12.8 17.0 2COMADO2 Comoros RURAL SERVICES AREA DEVEL. 1984 0.0 5.0 9.3 NONE NONE*CITED NONE CITED NONE CITED 2ETHANO2 Ethiopia COFFEE PROCESSING II AGRO-INDUSTRY 1984 0.0 35.0 57.2 NA NA NA 2ETHAROS Ethiopia AGRI.RESEARCH RESEARCN/EXT. 1985 0.0 22.0 32.1 2ETHAYO1 Ethiopia DROUGHT RECOVERY OTHER 1985 0.0 30.0 41.4 2KENAAO7 Kenya NATIONAL EXTENSION SECTOR LOAN 1983 0.0 15.0 28.6 NONE NONE*CITED NONE CITED HONE CITED 2KENAAO8 Kenya AGRI.SECTOR SECTOR LOAN 1986 0.0 20.0 60.0 2MAGAIO4 Madagascar LAC ALAOTRA II IRRIG IRRIGATION 1983 0.0 18.0 38.0 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITED 2MAGAIO8 Madagascar IRRI06TION REHAB. IRRIGATION 1985 0.0 12.0 29.6 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 2MAGA109 Madagascar AGRI.SECTOR ADJUST.CR. IRRIGATION 196 0.0 20.0 60.0 2MAGANO3 Madagascar COTTON AGRO-INDUSTRY 1984 0.0 17.8 34.4 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 2MALADi2 Malawi NADP IV AREA DEVEL. 1983 0.0 10.6 12.5 . . 2MALADi3 Matawi EXT. PLANNING AREA DEVEL. 1986 0.0 11.6 20.2 . -. 2MALAR01 MaLawi AGRI RES. RESEARCH/EXT. 1981 0.0 23.8 49.9 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 2MALATO1 Matawi W000 EGY.II FORSTRY 1986 16.7 0.0 19.6 2MALAY01 MataWi FERTILIZER CR.IFAD OTHER 1983 0.0 5.0 30.0 2MTSAN03 Mauritius SUGAR I AGRO-INDUSTRY 1986 30.0 0.0 4.9 2RUAADO6 Rwanda SUGESERA II AREA DEVEL. 1983 0.0 16.3 21.6 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 2RUAAD07 Rwanda AGRI RESEARCH AREA DEVEL. 1965 0.0 11.5 18.0 NA NA NA 2RWAADIl Ruanda GITARMMA SVCS.AGR. AREA DEVEL. 1966 0.0 12.7 22.6 2SONADO6 Santia MU AGRIC.II AREA DEVEL. 1986 0.0 10.6 25.6 2SONADO9 Sanati AGRI. INPUTS I AREA DEVEL. 1905 0.0 10.0 19.5 2SOMAD10 Santia AGR.SEC.ADJ.PROG. AREA DEVIL. 1986 0.0 30.0 70.0 2SM4AF01 Santia FISHERIES FISHERY 1964 0.0 13.5 19.0 NA NA NA 2SOMALO3 Santia LIVESTK.HEALTH SERV. LIVESTOCK 1986 0.0 4.3 11.6 2SUDAAO2 the Sudan DROUGHT RECOVERY SECTOR LOAN 1985 0.0 20.0 24.9 2SUDAD17 the Sudan WEST.SAVANN II AREA DEVEL. 1986 0.0 10.6 43.8 MAJOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 2SUDAIO9 the Sudan EXTENSION/RESEARCH IRRIGATION 1986 0.0 22.0 38.0 2SUDA110 the Sudan GEZIRA REHAB IRRIGATION 1983 0.0 80.0 262.7 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT NONE CITED 2SUDAIll the Sudan AGRI.REHAB. II IRRIGATION. 1983 0.0 50.0 50.0 2SUDALO4 the Sudan STOCKROUTE LIVESTOCK 1985 0.0 5.5 19.6 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT PROBLEM 2SUDAN03 the Sudan SUGAR REHAS AGRO-INDUSTRY 1984 0.0 60.0 181.3 NONE NONE-CITED NONE CITED NONE CITED 2UANADO2 Uganda AGRI.DEVEL.IFAD II AREA DEVEL. 1965 0.0 10.0 31.4 2UANAYO1 Uganda AGRIC. REHAB. OTHER 1983 0.0 70.0 87.6 NONE NONE-CITED BENEFIT BENEFIT 2ZAIAAOI Zaire SEEDS SECTOR LOAN 1985 0.0 14.9 21.2 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED. NONE CITED 2ZAIADOS Zaire NE R.D/ITURI II AREA DEVEL. 1985 0.0 13.0 30.2 NONE NONE-CITED NONE CITED NONE CITED 2ZAIADO8 Zaire MAIZE II/LULUA AGR DEV AREA DEVEL. 1985 0.0 12.5 21.9 2ZAMAAI Zaubia AGRI REHAB. SECTOR LOAN 1985 0.0 25.0 89.0 2ZAMAF01 Zambia FISHERIES FISHERY 1985 0.0 7.1 10.6 2ZANATO3 Zambia FORESTRY III FORESTRY 1984 0.0 22.4 42.5 NONE NONE*CITED BENEFIT BENEFIT 2ZIMARO1 Zimbabe EXT&RES.IFAD RESEARCH/EXT. 1984 13.1 0.0 177.1 2ZIMATO1 ZImbabwe RURAL AFFORESTATION FORESTRY 1983 0.0 7.3 10.6 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT NONE CITED 2ZIMAXO1 Zimbabwe SMALL FARM CREDIT UNIDENTIFIED 1983 0.0 30.4 47.3 MINOR PROBLEMS PROBLEM NONE CITED (Appendix A Continued) AGR Projects and Resource Management Page A-2 .......................******************************* REGIONOWESTERN AFRICA ***********.************************************.****. PROJECT COUNTRY PROJECT AME SUBSECTOR YEAR BANK IDA PRO- ENVIRONMENTAL LATERAL TEMPORAL I LOAN CREDIT JECT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT COST 38ENADO6 Benin RURAL DET III (20U) AREA DEVL. 1983 0.0 20.0 62.7 38ENAD9 Benin 8ORGOU R.D. SUPPLEMENT AREA DEVEL. 1986 0.0 1.9 1.9 38ENATO1 Benin FORESTRY FORESTRY 1984 0.0 5.4 13.0 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 38URAD10 lurkina Faso KOUDCUGOU PILOT AREA DEVIL. 1963 0.0 7.0 10.8 38URAD1 Surkina Faso VOLTA NOIRE AO. AREA DEVEL. 1983 0.0 6.8 22.1 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT NONE CITED 38URAD12 Burkina Faso HAUTS BASSINS AGRIC. AREA DEVEL. 1983 0.0 4.7 20.8 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT NONE CITED 38URAYOI Burkina Faso FERTILIZER CREDIT OTHER 1985 0.0 13.7 24.1 3CAMAD11 Cameroon FSAR II AREA DEVL. 1985 25.5 0.0 44.4 3CAmD14 Canroon WESTERN PROVINCE RDP II AREA DEVEL. 1984 21.5 0.0 55.7 NONE NONE-CITED NONE CITED NONE CITED 3CANAPIO Camroon NEWCAM RUBBER PERENNIALS 1985 8.3 0.0 83.7 3CARADO2 C. African R. RURAL DEVELOPMENT AREA DEVIL. 1963 0.0 10.4 51.2 3CARALO2 C. African R. MATL. LIVESTOCK LIVESTOCK 1986 0.0 11.9 37.3 3CHDAD06 Chad COTTON AREA DEVL. 1966 0.0 15.0 47.4 3MOWD00 Eq. Guinea COCOA RENA AREA DEVIL. 1985 0.0 9.3 16.2 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT BENEFIT 3AADOS Gabia, The AGR. DEVT II AREA DEVL. 1984 0.0 9.4 18.8 MAJOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 3GHMP13 Ghana OIL PALM II PERENNIALS 1984 0.0 25.0 35.9 MINOR PROBLEMS PROBLEM NONE CITED 3GUtADO2 Gufnea GUECKEDOU AGRIC.DEVT AREA DEWL. 1986 0.0 6.6 25.2 3GUIAX01 Guinea FIRST AG SERVICES UNIDENTIFIED 1986 0.0 7.5 10.1 . 31VCAP21 Ivory Coast RUBBER IV PERENNIALS 1983 32.2 0.0 98.5 MINOR PROBLEMS MONE CITED NONE CITED 3tVCAP22 Ivory Coat PAL OIL V PERENNIALS 1986 13.4 0.0 184.9.. 31VCATO2 Ivory Coast FORESTRY II FORESTRY 1985 31.3 0.0 51.6 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT BENEFIT 3LIBADO6 Liberia BONG AGRIC. DEVT.II AREA DEWL. 1984 0.0 6.7 22.9 NONE NONE-CITED NNE CITED NONE CITED 3MLIADO7 Matf SUD II AREA DEVIL. 1964 0.0 25.9 84.0 MINOR PROBLENS PROBLEM NONE CITED 3MLIAI05 Mal NMOPTI AREA DEVT. IRRIGATION 1985 0.0 19.5 41.7 MAJOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 3LIATO2 Mati FORESTRY II FORESTRY 1986 0.0 6.3 16.7 3MTMIO4 Mauritania SMALL SCALE IRRIGATI IRRIGATION 1965 0.0 7.5 10.8 NONE NONE-CITED NONE CITED NONE CITED 3NTAALO2 Mauritania LIVESTOCK II LIVESTOCK 1986 0.0 7.6 18.1 3NIGA103 Nigeria IRRIGATION REHAB. IRRIGATION 1985 0.0 9.3 25.2 MINOR BENEFITS PROBLEM BENEFIT 3NIRADSS Niger KADUNA AGRIC. OEVW. AREA DEVIL. 1984 122.0 0.0 193.7 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITED 3NIRAD36 Niger MULTI-STATE ADP AREA DEVIL. 1986 162.0 0.0 256.4 3NIRAYO2 Niger FERTILIZER IMPORTS OTHER 1964 250.0 0.0 631.4 3SENADO7 Senegal EASTERN SENEGAL RURAL DEW AREA DEVEL. 1984 0.0 16.1 44.6 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 3SENAIO6 Senegat IRRIGATION T.A. IRRIGATION 1986 0.0 4.9 15.1 3SILADO6 Sierra Leone AGRIC.SECTOR I AREA DEVL. 1984 0.0 21.5 28.9 MAJOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 3TOGAO4 Togo RURAL DEVY. II AREA DEVEL. 1983 0.0 23.5 48.7 NONE NONE-CITED NONE CITED NONE CITED 3TOGADO5 Togo SOTOC SUPPLEMENT AREA DEVIL. 1986 0.0 6.9 7.9 (Appendix A Continued) AGR Projects and Resource Management Page A-3 .........................*************** REGIONEUROPE, MIDDLE EAST, AND NORTH AFRICA **************************A***.*....... PROJECT COUNTRY PROJECT NAM SUSSECTOR YEAR SANK IDA PRO* ENVIROMENTAL LATERAL TEMPORAL LOAN CREDIT JECT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT COST SCYPAIO4 Cyprus S0UTH.CONVEYOR I IRRIGATION 1984 27.0 0.0 202.3 SCYPAI06 Cyprus KHRYSQKHOU IRRIGATION IRRIGATION 1983 16.0 0.0 46.2 SCYPARO1 Cyprus AGRIC. RESEARCH RESEARCH/EXT. 1985 7.0 0.0 14.5 SEGTAlO Egypt, AR DRAINAGE V IRRIGATION 1985 68.0 0.0 198.1 SECTAIO8 Egypt, AR IRRIG. PUMPING STATIONS IRRIGATION 1983 41.5 0.0 68.5 SIGTAIIO Egypt. AR CHANNEL MAINT. IRRIGATION 1986 70.0 0.0 126.9 SEGTANC2 Egypt, AR AGROINDUSTRIES II AGRO-INDUSTRY 1983 81.2 0.0 134.5 SESTAYO1 Egypt, AR AGRIC.DEVT. II OTHER 1985 139.0 0.0 359.0 5HUNANo1 Hungary AGRICULTURE AGRO-tUSTRY 1963 130.4 0.0 313.6 SHUNANC2 Hungary B-LOAN AGR. IND. AGRO-INDUSTRY 1984 38.8 0.0 0.0 SHUNAXOl Huaery INT. LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY UNIDENTIFIED 1985 80.0 0.0 325.2 SMYCAAOI Morocco AGRIC.SEC.I SECTOR LOAN 1985 100.0 0.0 140.0 SNYCAC05 Morocco CNCA-V CREDIT 1964 115.4 0.0 601.9 SMYCACO6 Morocco CNCA VI CREDIT 1986 120.0 0.0 720.3 SMYCADOT Morocco AG.DEV.OULMS AREA DEVEL. 1983 30.0 0.0 105.5 SNYCAliO Morocco SNALLMD.IRRIG. IRRIGATION 1983 42.0 0.0 101.6 SMYCAI13 Morocco LARGE IRRM. IMPROVEMENT IRRIGATION 196 46.0 0.0 92.5 SPORAA01 Portugal TA/AGRICULTURE SECTOR LOAN 1984 7.4 0.0 11.6 SSYRARO1 Syrian AR AGRIC.EXTENSION RESEARCN/WT. 1986 7.5 0.0 36.3 STUNADO4 Tunisia CENTRAL TUNISIA IRRIGATION AREA DEVEL. 1963 16.5 0.0 43.8 STUNOS Tunisia Ni AGR. PRODUCTION AREA DEVEL. 1985 15.0 0.0 37.7 STUNAIOS Twisia NATL. IRR. MaT. IMP. IRRIGATION 1985 22.0 0.0 61.0 STUAI09 Tunisia GASES IRRIGATION IRRIGATION 1986 27.7 0.0 58.3 5TURAAO1 Turkey .AG.SEC.ADJ.LN.t SECTOR LOAN 1985 300.0 0.0 2353.2 STURACOB Turkey AGRIC. CR.I CREDIT 1983 150.4 0.0 363.5 STURAI05 Turkey IAEE IRRIGATION IRRIGATION 1984 115.3 0.0 291.7 STUWAIOB Turkey . ON-FARM DEV. IRRIGATION 1986 255.0 0.0 480.5 STURARO1 Turkey AGR.EXTM. APPLD.RESRCN. RESEARCH/EXT. 1964 72.2 0.0 205.7 SYARACO5 Yemn, AR AGR.CREDIT CREDIT 1963 0.0 8.0 12.7 SYARADO6 Yemn, AR tMDI AL JAWF AG.DEV. AREA DEVEL. 1965 0.0 10.0 38.0 SYARADO7 Yemn, AR CENTRAL HIGHLANDS AG. DEV. AREA DEVEL. 1984 0.0 8.0 20.0 SYARAI06 Yemn, AR TIHAMA V IRRIGATION 1986 0.0 10.0 47.0 5YoRAo2 Yemn, piR taDI HADRAMwr II AREA DEVEL. 1983 0.0 9.0 36.0 5YDRADO6 Yemen, POR AGRIC. RESEARCH & EX AREA DEVEL. 1965 0.0 5.0 7.0 SYUGAAO1 Yugoslavia FERTILIZER(SAP) SECTOR LOAN 1984 90.0 0.0 89.8 SYUGADO2 Yugoslavia REG.DEV.KOSOVD AREA DEVEL. 1983 79.0 0.0 170.7 SYUGADO6 Yugoslavia MONTENEGRO REG. DEVT. AREA DEVEL. 1985 40.0 0.0 74.6 SYUGADO7 Yugoslavia SERBIA REG. DEV. AREA DEVEL. 1963 136.0 0.0 485.8 SYUGAX02 Yugoslavia FORESTRY-80SNIA UNIDENTIFIED 1985 35.0 0.0 94.8 (Appendix A Continued) AGR Projects and Resource Management Page A-4 .********************************************** REGIWLATIN MERICA/CARIR8CAR ***************************.*A************..... PROJECT COUITRY PROJECT NAME SUSSECTOR YEAR BANK IDA PRO- ENVIRONMENTAL LATERAL TEMPORAL ID LOAN CREDIT JECT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT COST 6ARGAA01 Argentine AGR SECTOR-A SECTOR LOAN 1986 350.0 0.0 350.0 6BRAAAO1 Breal AG CREDIT/XP DEVT (AP) SECTOR LOAN 1984 303.0 0.0 989.2 68RAAAO2 Brazil CREDIT & MKTG.REF0RM-A SECTOR LOAN 1966 500.0 0.0 500.0 68RAAD24 Brazil BANIA R/D II AREA DEVEL. 1983 67.8 0.0 173.6 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 6BRAAD25 Brail NE RURAL DEVT I-A AREA DEVEL. 1985 61.3 0.0 130.3 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITED 6BRAD27 Brazil LAND RES/TITLING-A AEA DEVEL. 1985 100.0 0.0 250.3 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED dBRM28 Brazil N DEVT Ill-NE SETTLEMENTS AREA DEVEL. 1984 65.2 0.0 181.8 MAJOR PROBLEMS PROBLEM PROBLEM 68RAMD38 Brazil NE RURAL DEVT I1-A AREA DEVIL. 1965 61.6 0.0 136.2 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITED 68RAMD4 Brazil NE R/D V-PERNAMMUCO-A AREA DEVEL. 1986 92.0 0.0 188.4 6BRAAIO1 Brailt UP&NDLE SA0 FRNCO IR-A IRRIGATION 1986 57.0 0.0 123.6 6BRAAIO4 Brazil IRRIG ENGINEERING-A IRRIGATION 1986 48.0 0.0 107.7 6BRAANO9 Brazil AGRO-INDUSTRIES III (AP) AGRO-INDUSTRY 1983 400.0 0.0 1200.0 NA NA NA 68RAAROS Brazil AG EXTENSION I-A RESEARCH/EXT. 1986 155.0 0.0 349.1 6BRAAYO1 Brailt AGRIC SUPPLEMENT (AP) OTHER 1986 30.5 0.0 0.0 6CHLACO4 Chile AGRICULTURAL SERVICES & CREDIT CREDIT 1965 56.0 0.0 157.1 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 6CLMAAO5 Coldia TRADE & AI SECTOR-A SECTOR LOAN 1986 250.0 0.0 250.0 6CLMADO7 Colaffbi AGRIC DIVERSIFICATION AREA DEVEL. 1984 50.0 0.0 253.4 NONE NONE-CITED NONE CITED NONE CITED 6CLMAIOB Col@ba IRRIGATION Il-A IRRIGATION 1966 114.0 0.0 257.5 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 6CLMARO1 Cotcnbfa AGRIC RESEARCH & EXTENSION I RESEARC/EXT. 1983 63.4 0.0 206.6 NA NA 4A dEOAA02 Ecuador AG SECTOR-A SECTOR LoA 1966 100.0 0.0 100.0 6GADAN01 Grenada AGN REIAB & DVRS-A AGRO-ISTRY 1985 0.0 5.0 7.9 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 60UYAT03 Guyana FORESTRY SUPPL-A FORESTRY 1965 0.0 8.8 15.7 6HAIAD02 Haiti RURAL DEVT II (SDR-17.7) AREA DEVEL. 1984 0.0 19.1 29.1 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT NONE CITED 6HDSACO3 Hanuras AGRICULTURAL CREDIT III CREDIT 1983 45.0 0.0 74.1 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 6JAMANG2 Jamica EXPORT CRPS I AGRO-INDUSTRY 1984 15.1 0.0 40.5 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED MXCACO4 Mexico ARIC CREDIT/FIRA VIII CREDIT 1984 300.0 0.0 763.0 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 6MXCACO6 Mexico AU. CREDIT-A CREDIT 1966 180.0 0.0 473.0 6MXCADO9 Nexico SAN FERNANDO AGRIC DEW I AREA DEVEL. 1983 138.4 0.0 350.7 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITED MCAD11 Mexico AG DEVT I*CHIAPAS-8 AREA DEVEL. 1985 90.0 0.0 181.6 . 4NNCD13 Mexico PRODERITH I1-A AREA DEVEL. 1986 109.0 0.0 217.5 6MXCAN02 Mexico ARIC MARKETING AGA-INDUSTRY 1983 115.0 0.0 227.0 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 6PANALO3 Panae LIVESTOCK III LIVESTOCK 1984 9.0 0.0 25.5 6PARACO3 Paraguay ARICULTURAL CREDIT CREDIT 1983 40.0 0.0 72.0 6PARAL07 Paraguay LIVESTOCK VII LIVESTOCK 1984 25.0 0.0 121.1 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITED 6PERACO6 Peru AG CREDIT VI (AP-65) CREDIT 1983 130.0 0.0 239.0 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 6PERADOS Peru ALTO MAYO RURAL DEVT AREA DEVEL. 1983 30.0 0.0 84.0 MINOR PROBLEMS PROBLEM NONE CITED 6PERADO6 Peru RURAL DEVT III AREA DEVEL. 1984 40.0 0.0 67.4 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITED 6URUAAO1 Uruguay AGRIC SECTOR SECTOR LOAN 1985 60.0 0.0 60.0 (Appendix A Continued) AGR Projects and Resource Management Page A-5 .**********....*****...-.***.-***************** REGIONSEAST ASIA AND PACIFIC ***************************F*I********************* PROJECT CoNTRY PROJECT NAME SUBSECTOR YEAR BANK IDA PRO* ENVIRONMENTAL LATERAL TEMPORAL ID LOAN CREDIT JECT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT COST TCHAAAO3 Chire, PR SEEDS I SECTOR LOAN 1985 0.0 40.0 86.8 7CHAACO1 China, PR RURAL CREDIT I CREDIT 1984 0.0 50.0 142.4 7CHAACO2 Chin, PR RURAL CREDIT II CREDIT 1986 0.0 90.0 256.9 7CHMAAFOl Chin, PR FRESHWATER FISHERIES FISHERY 1986 0.0 60.0 197.7 7CHAAIO1 Chins, PR HEILONGJIANG GRAIN IRRIGATION 1983 35.3 45.0 271.0 7CHMIO2 China, PR P1 SHI HANG AREA IRRIGATION 1985 17.0 75.0 263.5 7CHAAPOI Chins, PR RUBBER DEVELOPMENT PERENNIALS 1986 0.0 100.0 301.0 7CHMRO2 Chin, PR AGRIC.RESEARCH II RESEARCH/EXT. 1985 0.0 25.0 59.0 7CHATO2 Chin, PR FORESTRY FORESTRY 1985 0.0 47.3 135.8. 7INSADO6 Indonesia TRANSMIGRATION III AREA DEVEL. 1963 101.0 0.0 187.3 MINOR PROBLEMS PROBLEM PROBLEM 7tINSADO7 Indonesia TRANSNIG.IV(E.KALIMANTAN) AREA DEVEL. 1983 63.5 0.0 121.0 MINOR PROBLEMS PROBLEM PROBLEM 7tINSAD1S Indonesia TRANSMIGRATION V AREA DEVEL. 1985 160.0 0.0 275.3 MINOR PROBLEMS PROBLEM PROBLEM 7tNSAD17 Indonesia UPLAND AGRIC.&CONSERV. AREA DEVL. 1985 11.3 0.0 50.1 71NSA124 Indonesia SWAMP RECL II IRRIGATION 1984 65.0 0.0 108.3 MINOR PROBLEMS MONE CITED PROBLEM 7tNSAI26 Indonesia IRRIG.(KEDWG GO) IRRIGATION 1985 156.0 0.0 283.1 7INSA127 Indonesia W.TARUM CANAL IRRIGATION 1985 43.4 0.0 72.8 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT NONE CITE 7INSA128 Indonesia 2ND PROVINCIAL IRRIG. IRRIGATION 1984 89.0 0.0 150.2 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITE 7INSAI30 Indonesia C.8MEST JAVA PROV.IR IRRIGATION 1986 166.0 0.0 302.3 7INSALO3 Indonesia SUR CATTLE DEV. LIVESTOCK 1986 32.0 0.0 66.4 . - 7tNSAP16 Indonesia NES VII PERENNIALS 1983 154.6 0.0 369.8 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITE 7INSAP18 Indonesia SAOP II (TREECROPS) PERENNIALS 1985 131.0 0.0 221.0 7INSAP20 Indonesia MES SUGAR PERENNIALS 1984 79.2 0.0 130.2 MAJOR PROBLEMS BENEFIT NONE CITE 7tNSAYO4 Indonesia MUSA TENGRA AG.SUPP OTHER 1986 33.0 0.0 59.0 7KORACOS Korea, Rep. AG.CREDIT CREDIT 1985 25.0 0.0 SS.5 7LAOAAOI Lao POR AG.PRODUCTION SUPPORT SECTOR LOAN 1983 0.0 6.2 24.8 NA MA NA 7MAYAD2S Malaysia KEDAH AG. DEV. AREA DEVEL. 1983 56.9 0.0 195.1 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITE 7MAYAN01 Malaysia FELDA PALM OIL MILLS AGRO*INDUSTRY 1985 31.2 0.0 62.1 7MAYATO4 Malaysia SASAH FORESTRY(T.A.) FORESTRY 1985 6.5 0.0 13.1 7NAYAYO2 Malaysia LAND SETTLEMENT INFR OTHER 1986 50.0 0.0 97.4 7PAPACO4 Papua N.G. AG. CREDIT III CREDIT 1966 18.8 0.0 31.3 7PAPAD13 Papua N.G. EST SEPIK PROV.DEV. AREA DEVEL. 1985 9.7 0.0 16.6 7PAPAPOI Papua N.G. NILNE BAY NES PERENNIALS 1986 27.6 0.0 59.2 7PAPARO1 Papua N.C. AG. SUPPORT SERVICES RESEARCH/EXT. 1983 14.1 0.0 24.4 NA NA NA 7PHLAA03 Philippines AGRIC.SECTOR/INPUTS SECTOR LOAN 1985 150,0 0.0 459.0 ?PHLAC12 Phitippines AGRIC. CREDIT I CREDIT 1985 100.0 0.0 183.0 7PHLAD12 Philippines C.VISAYAS(RES.VII)RURAL AREA DEVEL. 1984 25.6 0.0 44.3 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT NONE CITE 7PHLAI2S Philippines IRRIG.-SUPPLEMT.LOAN IRRIGATION 1984 5.1 0.0 0.0 7SLIARO1 Solmon Is. AGRIC. DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH/EXT. 1984 0.0 3.5 11.5 7THLAA03 Thailand LAND TITLING SECTOR LOAN 1984 35.0 0.0 76.0 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT BENEFIT ?THLACO2 Thailand AGRIC. CREDIT II CREDIT 1983 70.0 0.0 188.7 7THLADO3 Thailand LAND REFORM DEV AREA DEVEL. 1963 17.0 0.0 31.0 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT BENEFIT 7THLADO9 Thailand RURAL DEV. I AREA DEVEL. 1984 50.0 0.0 157.2 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITE 7THLAP03 Thailand RUBBER REPLANT. III PERENNIALS 1986 60.0 0.0 263.5 7VANAA01 Vanuatu AGRIC.RESEARCN & EXT. SECTOR LOAN 1984 0.0 2.0 3.8 7VANAYOl Vanuatu WLTIPROJ-ADB OTHER 1986 0.0 2.0 6.3 70SNAX01 Sam IULTI*PROJECT LOAN UNIDENTIFIED 1986 0.0 2.5 9.6 (Appendix A Continued) AGR Projects and Resource Management Page A-6 ****************************.* .********.************** REGIONRSOUTN ASIA **************************************************.*****. PROJECT COUNTRY PROJECT NAME SUBSECTOR YEAR BANK IDA PRO- ENVIRONMENTAL LATERAL TEMPORAL ID LOAN CREDIT JECT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT COST 8ARAD03 Sangladesh RURAL DEV II AREA DEVEL. 1963 0.0 100.0 176.9 MA NONE CITED NONE CITED 8BANADOS Bangladesh FLOOD CON. & DRAINAGE III AREA DEVEL. 1905 0.0 48.0 65.0 8BANAFO2 BangLadesh SHRIMP CULTURE PROJECT FISHERY 1986 0.0 22.0 36.7 88ANA114 Bangladesh DEEP TUBEWLLS II IRRIGATION 1983 0.0 68.0 141.9 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 88ANAI24 Bangladesh Q8 SMALL SCHEMES PROJECT IRRIGATION 1984 0.0 41.5 58.0 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 88ANANOS Bangladesh SUGAR AGRO-INDUSTRY 1984 0.0 20.0 25.7 NONE NONE-CITED NONE CITED NONE CITED 8 1ANAR13 Bangladesh AGAIC TRAINING It RESEARCH/EXT. 1964 0.0 8.1 9.9 NA NA NA 88ANAR15 Bangladesh AG RES II RESEARCH/EXT. 1984 0.0 24.5 32.2 88ANATO2 Bangladesh FORESTRY II FORESTRY 1986 0.0 28.0 36.0 . 88HUAT01 Bhutan FORESTRY FORESTRY 1984 0.0 5.5 6.8 MINOR PROBLEMS PROBLEN BENEFIT 8WJAAIO4 Burme GROUNDWATER IRRIG. I IRRIGATION 1983 0.0 14.0 22.0 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITED 88UAAIOS Bure TANK IRRIG. IRRIGATION 1983 0.0 19.0 27.1 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITED 88UAANO2 Burm GRAIN STORAGE II AGRO-INDUSTRY 1986 0.0 30.0 79.9 88UAAP03 Burma RUBBER REHAB II PERENNIALS 1983 0.0 9.0 13.7 MA NONE CITED NONE CITED 8WAARO3 Burma SEEDS RESEARCH/EXT. 1985 0.0 14.5 28.5 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 88UAATOS Burma woO0 IND. II FORESTRY 1984 0.0 25.0 57.4 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 8INDAC30 India NABARD I CREDIT 1986 375.0 0.0 5355.6 8tNDAC31 India MCC III CREDIT 1984 0.0 220.0 468.0 MA NA NA 8INDAI31 India WATERSHED DEV/RAINFED AREAS IRRIGATION 1984 0.0 31.0 45.5 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT -BENEFIT 8INDAI32 India SWERNAREKHA IRRIG. IRRIGATION 1983 0.0 127.0 181.9 MINOR PROBLEMS NONE CITED NONE CITED 8tNDA137 India UPPER WNGA IRRIS IRRIGATION 19864 0.0 125.0 231.3 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 81NDAI46 India HIMALAYAN WATERSHED DEVEL. IRRIGATION 1983 46.2 0.0 69.1 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT BENEFIT 8INDAI47 India NARMA (GUJARAT) DA IRRIGATION 1985 200.0 100.0 1933.4 MAJOR PROBLEMS PROBLEM BENEFIT 8tNDA149 India A.P. IRRIGATION II IRRIGATION 1966 131.0 140.0 475.8 8INDAISI India HARYANA IRRIG. II IRRIGATION 1983 0.0 150.0 300.3 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT BENEFIT 8NDA152 India UP TUBEWELLS II IRRIGATION 1983 0.0 101.0 192.2 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT NONE CITED 8tNDAI53 India NARMADA (GUJARAT) CA IRRIGATION 1985 0.0 150.0 520.9 SINDAISS India CHAMBAL MP II IRRIGATION 1963 0.0 31.0 61.8 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT NONE CITED 8INDAIS8 India PERIYAR VAGAI II IRRIGATION 1984 0.0 35.0 58.8 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 8INDAIS9 India W. BENGAL MINOR IRRI IRRIGATION 1966 0.0 99.0 141.8 8INDAI61 India GUJARAT MEDIUM II IRRIGATION 1984 0.0 172.0 344.1 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 81MDAI62 India MANARASNTRA WATER UTILIZATION IRRIGATION 1963 22.7 32.0 78.1 . 8tNDA163 India ORISSA MEDIUN IRRIG. II IRRIGATION 1984 0.0 105.0 140.6 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED SINDAI73 India MAIIARASHTRA IRRIG. III IRRIGATION 1966 0.0 160.0 322.7 8INDARO8 India NATIONAL AGRIC. EXTENSION RESEARCH/EXT. 1965 0.0 39.1 56.3 NA NA NA 8INDAR18 India NATIONAL AGRIC. RES. It RESEARCH/EXT. 1986 0.0 72.1 110.9 8INDAR19 India NAT. AGRIC. EXT. II RESEARCH/EXT. -8 0.0 49.0 83.6 8INDATO9 India KARNATAKA SOCIAL FORESTRY FORESTRY 1984 0.0 27.0 56.6 8INDATIO India HARYANA & J.K. SOCIAL FORESTRY FORESTRY 1983 0.0 33.0 67.1 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT BENEFIT SINDATi2 India . KERALA FORESTRY FORESTRY 1985 0.0 31.8 54.5 8INDAT13 India NAT. SOC. FORESTRY I FORESTRY 1985 0.0 165.0 3W7.8 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT BENEFIT 8MLDAFO2 Neldives FISHERIES I FISHERY 1983 0.0 5.0 12.6 8NEPAIOS Nepat IRRIG. VII (BAIRAWA LUMBINI) IRRIGATION 1983 0.0 16.0 . 19.4 8NEPAIII Nepat NARAYANI III (CONSOLID.) IRRIGATION 1986 0.0 24.5 35.5 8NEPANO6 Nepat CASH CROPS AGRO-INDUSTRY 1983 0.0 6.0 7.4 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 8NEPARO2 Nepal AGRIC. EXTENSION II RESEARCH/EXT. 1905 0.0 7.2 8.5 8NEPATO2 Nepal FORESTRY II (TERAI) FORESTRY 1984 0.0 18.0 24.0 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT BENEFIT 8PAKACO8 Pakistan ADSP V CREDIT 1983 10.0 47.8 661.0 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED kppendix A Continued) AGR Projects and Resource Management Page A-7 ..... ..............********************************* REGIONOSOH AS.A **************************************.****************** PROJECT COUlTRY PROJECT NAK SUBSECTOR YEAR BANK IDA PRO ENVIRONMENTAL LATERAL TEWORAL ID LOAN CREDIT JECT IMPACT IMPACT IMPACT * COST 8PAKACO9 Pakistan ADSP VI CREDIT 1986 165.0 55.0 1670.7 8PAKAO5 Pakistan INTEGRATED HILL FAANING DEVIL. AREA DEVEL. 1984 0.0 21.0 26.5 MAJOR BENEFITS BENEFIT BENEFIT 8PAKA130 Pakistan FOURTH DRAINAGE PROJECT IRRIGATION 1983 0.0 65.0 101.4 MAJOR BENEFITS PROBLEM BENEFIT 8PAKAI36 Pakistan LEFT BANK OUTFALL DRAIN IRRIGATION 1985 0.0 150.0 735.7 MAJOR BENEFITS PROBLEM BENEFIT 8PAKAI37 Pakistan SCARP TRANSITION PILOT IRRIGATION 1986 0.0 10.0 21.8 8PAKAI38 Pakistan WATER MANAGEMENT II IRRIGATION 1985 0.0 34.5 48.5 MINOR SENEFITS PROBLEM NONE CITED 8PAKAI41 Pakistan CONIAND WATER MANAGEMENT IRRIGATION 196 0.0 46.5 81.9 MINOR BENEFITS PROBLEM NONE CITED 8PAKAI43 Pakistan RESERVOIR MAINTENANCE FACILITY IRRIGATION 1983 10.2 0.0 42.2 NA NONE CITED NONE CITED 8PAKARO4 Pakistan AGRIC. EXT. III RESEARCH/EXT..1965 0.0 8.3 11.5 NA NA NA 8SRIADO6 Sri Lanka URAL DEV III AREA DEVEL. 1983 0.0 23.0 31.2 MINOR BENEFITS NONE CITED NONE CITED 8SRIA1i Sri Lanka MAHAWLI IV IRRIGATION 1964 12.1 30.0 160.1 MAJOR PROBLEMS PROBLEM PROBLEM 8SRIAll6 Sri Lanka IRRIG. REIAB (MAJOR TANKS) IRRIGATION 1965 0.0 17.0 43.2 NONE NONE-CITED NONE CITED NONE CITED 8SRIALO2 Sri Lanka DAIRY II LIVESTOCK 1985 38.0 0.0 101.2 8SRIAPO8 Sri Lanka TREE CROPS IV PERENNIALS 1985 0.0 55.0 211.8 8SRIATO1 Sri Lanka FORESTY I FORESTRY 1983 0.0 9.0 15.0 MINOR BENEFITS BENEFIT NONE CITED